Home Grown

I applaud CBS for telling the story of Tamerlan Tsarnaev and trying to help us understand why he snapped, but anyone with half of a brain realizes that there is more to the story.

CBS reported that Tamerlan was the top boxer in New England, who should have been bound for the Olympics, but was denied his dream because he wasn't an American citizen. In 2010, the Massachusetts boxing commission changed it's name-and the rules for boxing in Massachusetts. Prior to the change a Legal Permanent Resident could compete in the national Golden Gloves championship. Tamerlan, had won the New England championship prior to the changes and should have been the one to represent Massachusetts for the national Golden Gloves championship. Instead, because he talked some trash, presumably to his American opponent (because the media only tells us what the government wants us to know),  he was out of a championship, out of the life he could have provided for his impoverished family, and out of the American dream with no recourse and nowhere to turn- and that people, is what made him snap.

America would love to blame some jihadists overseas for grooming Tamerlan Tsarnaev. It would love to be able to prove that some new ghostly organization, implanted him here and terrorism has now taken a new turn into "Operation Get Citizenship First" and then bomb the country- anything except admitting that it snatched this man's dream away, left him adrift- and as a result people died.

I point this out to say that not everyone rises above having their life ravaged by some new law, that couldn't bring about anything else. Everyone in America would love to stand firm on the belief that this is the greatest country in the world  which provides liberty and justice for all. Having served my country, but still treated like a stray dog in the judicial system, and having my child ripped away from me twice without cause, I think I can safely say that America needs some serious work. Home Grown in Tamerlan's case, meant exactly that. He didn't have to go anywhere. If America can get a grasp on that fact, then we could figure out what to do about Syria, without the fear of getting crushed in World War III.

It's a daggon shame people lost their lives and limbs because a Legal Permanent Resident, was denied his dream, in the same country that's going to pardon millions of illegal immigrants.

THE PUBLIC SAFETY DOCTRINE DOESN'T APPLY

No, I don't have a JD. But, I do have extensive, practical experience practicing law for myself, courtesy of Georgia, the most corrupt state in America. So, here's my take on Boston bomber #2's Miranda Rights.

I think a play on words is happening now. Although New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984) provides: "Miranda rule held not to preclude accused's interrogation prompted by concern for public safety"- that's not the end-all. Quarles, emphasizes the exigency of the circumstances and a law enforcement officer's legal ability to act within that exigency.

In Quarles, a police officer, had apprehended a suspect after a woman claimed she'd been raped. Upon frisking him, he found an empty gun holster. He then asked, "Where's the gun?", to which the suspect responded with the gun's location. After securing the gun, for his own safety and the safety of the public, the officer then, read the suspect his Miranda rights.

I think the case is going to run into two problems at this point. The decision of the officer in Quarles to act immediately, without mirandizing the suspect was a split second decision, in order to protect the public, which Quarles emphasizes: ..."The United States Supreme Court declines to place officers in the untenable position of having to consider, often in a matter of seconds, whether it best serves society for them to ask the necessary questions without the Miranda warnings and render whatever probative evidence they uncover inadmissible, or for them to give the warnings in order to preserve the admissibility of evidence they might uncover but possibly damage or destroy their ability to obtain that evidence and neutralize the volatile situation confronting them..." Minus all of the "gloobity glop" piled on top of what this is saying, the officers in Quarles had to obtain a tangible item of evidence, in order to neutralize a situation, that was confronting them at that very time, in the interest of protecting the public from the item. Once Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was found bloody, with no weapons on him, the situation had been neutralized. There was no further indication that the officers needed to act, spontaneously, in order to obtain tangible evidence, which was a threat to the public's safety. I think the main problem the case is going to run into is the time element. I don't think Quarles was meant to be construed as law enforcement's right to extend the Miranda exception, to a situation that could happen in the future, but isn't happening at that very moment. Furthermore, I don't think it was meant to be used to deprive Miranda rights in the hopes of finding an indication of further evidence, that needs to be secured. In Quarles, the empty holster was a clear indication that dangerous evidence had to be secured immediately, in order to protect the public. One cannot stretch, a spontaneous moment, if there is one, over an extended period time, where there is no clear indication that further evidence needs to be secured, in order to protect the public's safety.-But that's just my take.

Beware of Virgin Mobile Advertising

This is completely off topic but I thought I'd warn people. If you're thinking of buying Virgin Mobile Broadband2Go, be sure to call customer service and find out exactly whether or not your area has 4G coverage. Don't trust the "Map It" they have on their website. Even though they have 4 different options and Voice Coverage is it's own, your area may show that you are covered for 4G Lite, but 4G Lite, according to customer service, is only for phone service. 4G service customers pay $55 and enjoy unlimited service. If your area only has 3G service, you pay the same $55, but only get 5 GB of data- which will run out pretty quickly and you'll have to buy more MB. Beware. A supervisor agreed that the Map It results indeed mislead a "lay person."

SCOTUS Only For the Rich

It is obvious that DOMA is unconstitutional. So why isn't it just as obvious that O.C.G.A. 19-7-1 is also unconstitutional? Maybe if I had been rich enough to lose $363,000, my constitutional rights to my child would have mattered to SCOTUS and so would  those of other fit parents who have lost custodial rights. Long gone are the days of Clarence Gideon. A pro se litigant, no matter how viable his argument is, will not be heard and  the common man's rights will not be protected, even if the court itself has 90 years of its own precedence to refer to. In other words, if you don't have money, your rights don't matter, and "liberty and justice for all" means all who are rich.

MY TAKE ON DOMA

Let's talk about what the gay marriage argument is really about, the separation of Church and State. People are against gay marriage not because they hate homosexuals, but because they believe that sleeping with the same sex is a sin- an abomination- and unfortunately, the average religious American may applaud the separation of Church and State for the majority of issues, but on this particular issue, people are quite comfortable with the combination of the two. I say,  address the real issue. Should we continue to exercise this particular combination of Church and State?

Gay people would have a better chance at marriage, if they would admit that it is a sin to sleep with the same sex, and stop trying to insist that Bible-believing people accept their relationships as equal- because such will happen on the same day that peace comes about in the Middle East. Instead, gay people should insist, that if there is to be an atonement at the gates of heaven, that people concern themselves with only themselves and their own salvation. I can't account for you and you can't account me. In the end, a sin, is a sin, is a sin and God won't separate the liars, from the fornicators, the thieves, from the murders and so on. In other words, yes, it's wrong, but we all sin. There will be an atonement for us all. The question is, what will you have to answer for and is salvation the government's job?

I wish I could argue that marriage can be between one man and one man or one woman and woman, but I can't:

Genesis 2:22-24

Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.  The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, ' for she was taken out of man."  For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Mark 10:6-9

"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'  'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,  and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.  Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

I wish I could argue that homosexuality was right, but again, I can't:

Leviticus 20:13

King James Version (KJV)

¹³ If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

What I can argue is that these versus are the only arguments to support DOMA, and this is the problem. The 1st Amendment clearly states:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,...

Since there is no legal precedence to support DOMA and only the Bible, I conclude that DOMA is an unconstitutional.

What I can also argue is I love my family and friends, gay or straight. It is a hurting thing to watch someone else in pain because someone hates them for who they are. Leviticus clearly shows us that homosexuality isn't new. It says if a man lies with a man, but it doesn't mention anything about love between a man and a man. Here's where I start to get a little fuzzy... If lying with another man is wrong, then how is love possible between the two at all and if God is love, then how is love between two people wrong and if thou shall not kill, then whose being commanded to put people to death? It just gets a little murky for me...

I Didn't Forget

You know, these people think that I've forgotten what they've told me while we were on good terms. I remember the grandmother bragging that she had a "mafia friend" and a "FBI friend", whom she harkened upon to get my daughter's REAL grandmother, fired from her job. She also warned me before I filed for a divorce that when family gets involved "things could get ugly." When I reflect back on these little things, things start to make more sense. Is our judicial system really this tainted? I know one thing, it is only such a conclusion that would explain dormant police officers, magistrates that won't enforce criminal law, sheriff's deputies that don't know how to serve court papers, do-overs with no need for any appeals, ignored motions, missing transcripts and so on. This has nothing to do with my child's best interest and everything to do with people trying to prove to me how powerful they are and how much influence they have, even on a court proceeding, which should be impartial.

Make No Mistake

No lawyer will touch this case, which makes me know that many lawyers know about me, especially in Georgia. It also tells me that this case is bigger than I know and involves more than I know. So people are scared, but I don't care. Sometimes you just have to stand up for yourself, when no one else will.

Make no mistake, Judge Kell bestowed a constitutional entitlement to custody,  not provided by SCOTUS, to two people who had broken the law by violating a clear statute O.C.G.A. 16-5-45, Interference With Legal Custody, instead of recommending prosecution. He ordered that this stolen status of psychological parenthood, superseded my constitutional right to care, custody and control of my child so long as I am fit. He then REMOVED my child from my house.

Now folks, I'm not crazy. I'm not going to come online for the world to read and call a panel of Justices liars- without it being true. Trotter v. Ayres is a lie as reported and the record proves this. No one, not even the FBI, will do anything about the out of control state of Georgia.

LAWS DESIGNED FOR KIDNAPPERS TO GET CUSTODY IN GEORGIA

For those who don't  know the facts of #TrottervAyres, my daughter's paternal grandfather and step-grandmother, stole my child and hid the fact that they had her from me for two years, but were able to gain sole custody. The court declared that despite them breaking the law, during the two years that they broke the law, they had formed a "bond" with my child. The court then declared that this "bond" constituted the child's liberty interest afforded by Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). Thus, regardless of the grandparents criminal action, the child's interest was paramount and "must be balanced" with my fundamental liberty interest to custody of her, so long as I am fit- which the court deemed me to be. I was then stripped of even LEGAL custody, they were awarded sole legal and physical custody and my contact with my daughter was reduced to visitation only. As the grandparents had FAILED TWICE in court over a 13 month period, my daughter was already back in my care and home. The court's THIRD COURT ORDER of custody to them, removed my child from my home. The court declared that although I was fit with a loving bond with my daughter, the grandparents had "significant, primary bond".

I wish I could see the "WTF???!" faces of the lawyers who are reading this right now, and know better.

This is a newly created "compare the bonds after a crime has been committed" doctrine.

The criminal laws in Georgia are specifically written so that a third party relative who has taken the child of a parent, will not be prosecuted for kidnapping. Even though these "grandparents" had my child in their possession for two years, WITHOUT any legal custody, the only thing they could be prosecuted for was "Interference With Legal Custody":


OFFICIAL CODE OF GEORGIA ANNOTATED
Copyright 2012 by The State of Georgia
All rights reserved.
*** Current Through the 2012 Regular Session ***
*** Annotations Current Through November 9, 2012 ***
TITLE 16.  CRIMES AND OFFENSES  
CHAPTER 5.  CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON  
ARTICLE 3.  KIDNAPPING, FALSE IMPRISONMENT, AND RELATED OFFENSES
 
GO TO GEORGIA STATUTES ARCHIVE DIRECTORY
O.C.G.A. § 16-5-45  (2012)
§ 16-5-45.  Interference with custody


   (a) As used in this Code section, the term:

   (1) "Child" means any individual who is under the age of 17 years or any individual who is under the age of 18 years who is alleged to be a deprived child or an unruly child as such terms are defined in Code Section 15-11-2.

   (2) "Committed person" means any child or other person whose custody is entrusted to another individual by authority of law.

   (3) "Lawful custody" means that custody inherent in the natural parents, that custody awarded by proper authority as provided in Code Section 15-11-45, or that custody awarded to a parent, guardian, or other person by a court of competent jurisdiction.

   (4) "Service provider" means an entity that is registered with the Department of Human Services pursuant to Article 7 of Chapter 5 of Title 49 or a child welfare agency as defined in Code Section 49-5-12 or an agent or employee acting on behalf of such entity or child welfare agency.

(b) (1) A person commits the offense of interference with custody when without lawful authority to do so, the person:

      (A) Knowingly or recklessly takes or entices any child or committed person away from the individual who has lawful custody of such child or committed person;

      (B) Knowingly harbors any child or committed person who has absconded; provided, however, that this subparagraph shall not apply to a service provider that notifies the child's parent, guardian, or legal custodian of the child's location and general state of well being as soon as possible but not later than 72 hours after the child's acceptance of services; provided, further, that such notification shall not be required if:

         (i) The service provider has reasonable cause to believe that the minor has been abused or neglected and makes a child abuse report pursuant to Code Section 19-7-5;

         (ii) The child will not disclose the name of the child's parent, guardian, or legal custodian, and the Division of Family and Children Services within the Department of Human Services is notified within 72 hours of the child's acceptance of services; or

         (iii) The child's parent, guardian, or legal custodian cannot be reached, and the Division of Family and Children Services within the Department of Human Services is notified within 72 hours of the child's acceptance of services; or

      (C) Intentionally and willfully retains possession within this state of the child or committed person upon the expiration of a lawful period of visitation with the child or committed person.

   (2) A person convicted of the offense of interference with custody shall be punished as follows:

      (A) Upon conviction of the first offense, the defendant shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not less than $200.00 nor more than $500.00 or shall be imprisoned for not less than one month nor more than five months, or both fined and imprisoned;

      (B) Upon conviction of the second offense, the defendant shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not less than $400.00 nor more than $1,000.00 or shall be imprisoned for not less than three months nor more than 12 months, or both fined and imprisoned; and

      (C) Upon the conviction of the third or subsequent offense, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years.
   

Georgia, what's the law for those who have illegally retained a child in their home for TWO WHOLE YEARS?- My bad, this is where the parens patriae adopts authority over the situation...

Will continue later. 

OTHER MOMS AND DADS DENIED RIGHTS IN GA CONTACT ME

If you have lost custody or you know of any other moms or dads who've had their parental rights terminated or were denied custody,  pursuant to O.C.G.A 19-7-1 or O.C.G.A. 15-11-37or 38, the so-called "Private Deprivation" statutes, contact me at kyunglt2@gmail.com. All of these statutes are unconstitutional. NO ONE  has a right to tell you IF and WHEN you are entitled your constitutional, fundamental rights to your child if you are FIT. It is one thing to want an amendment to the Constitution; it is another to enact and enforce statutes before you get one. An unconstitutional "law" isn't a law at all.

Thanks.

GIVE UP ON THE CONSTITUTION??!!!

Wait, wait, wait, wait. Hold the motherf@cking phone! Did this dude really say, "Let's give up on the Constitution?????" I usually watch the CBS Sunday Morning show, but yesterday, I happened to get up from my couch and begin to write a short story- about constitutional rights. So ironically, I of all people, missed this idiotic suggestion first hand. YES- let's forget the Constitution. Let's start with his rights. How about if we all go and take our pick of his property, because he sees no need for the 14th Amendment; right? Then, let's forbid him from giving his dumb-ass opinion altogether, because he obviously doesn't believe in free speech- and he obviously being a liberal- should really appreciate the end of the fight to uphold Roe v. Wade and all the other couple of centuries of precedence that derived from the Constitution. This is why we need to stand for the Constitution as a whole and not just the 2A. I didn't think anyone would be bold enough to throw the idea out on the table like this, but now we know for sure, that there are actually people out there who really just want the Constitution- and all of the case law that goes with it- to disappear! There would be no more pesky checks and balances and people who believe like he does, could just do whatever the hell the want to do! We must stop this dangerous idea and threat to our freedoms and right to protect ourselves.

#Obama's Recess Appointments Unconstitutional

Check this out: http://on.wsj.com/VdXykO

I'm glad this article suggests that decades of provisions should go untouched. I just said this yesterday concerning SCOTUS reaffirming the constitutional rights of fit parents for nearly ninety years, but declining to expound on Troxel v. Granville. This article says that the Constitution grants the president the power to make recess appoints. Here's what it actually says: USCS Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl 3
 
Sec. 2, Cl 3.  Appointments during recess of Senate.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Ok... Now here's when Congress meets: USCS Const. Art. I, § 4, Cl 2

Sec. 4, Cl 2.  Meetings.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the [first Monday in December], unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

This was modified by the 20th Amendment:  USCS Const. Amend. 20, § 2
 
Sec. 2. [Annual meeting of Congress--Date.]

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Soooo... Doesn't January 4 clearly fall outside of the recess window?

The writers claim that this is a "practice" of nearly 150 years, but only cites a particular president's attorney general's opinion.  (???, insert extremely confused emoticon face here) Of course the president's attorney would say that. In 1921, did the Attorney General have the same authority as the U.S. Supreme Court? Is this the only interpretation? What the heck is a "real and genuine recess?"

The difference between this instance and my case, is there are actual SCOTUS decisions to back up the nearly ninety years:

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401, 67 L. Ed. 1042, 43 S. Ct. 625 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535, 69 L. Ed. 1070, 45 S. Ct. 571 (1925); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 31 L. Ed. 2d 551, 92 S. Ct. 1208 (1972);Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232, 32 L. Ed. 2d 15, 92 S. Ct. 1526 (1972); Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, 54 L. Ed. 2d 511, 98 S. Ct. 549 (1978); Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 602, 61 L. Ed. 2d 101, 99 S. Ct.  2493 (1979); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599, 102 S. Ct. 1388 (1982); Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720, 138 L. Ed. 2d 772, 117 S. Ct. 2258 (1997) and Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

So, is the point of the article really that the appointments weren't unconstitutional, or is it that partisan courts make partisan decisions, or maybe it's because it's been "practiced" for 150 years, then it should be ok? We shouldn't be "practicing" anything. That's why we have a Constitution.

#liberalstryagain.

Corruption to Save an Unconstitutional Statute

I know some people like President Obama would like to abolish the Constitution altogether,  but until that happens- and I don't foresee such a success without a civil war- the Constitution is still the Supreme Law of the Land, and a "law" not in compliance with it, isn't a law at all.

 I had an attorney tell me last week that appellate courts often look for an "easy way out" to avoid review. Well, it's one thing to find an "easy way out." It's a whole other to make transcripts disappear in order to avoid review. I was denied due process in so many different ways but the collusion to withhold and "misplace"  3 sets of transcripts takes the cake.

Today one of my professors told me that the President appoints commissions to enforce the law. Where's the commission for the rogue appellate courts who are more concerned with protecting unconstitutional statutes, than doing their jobs? So much for checks and balances.

I WONDER IF THOSE WHO LIKE TO PLAY WITH THE CONSTITUTION HAVE READ THIS

http://bit.ly/WOg8j0

Laws that are not constitutional are not laws indeed. That Marine was right.

BRIEF TO THE COURT OF APPEALS AND CITATIONS TO THE "26 PAGE ORDER"

Here is my brief to the Georgia Court of Appeals. When one files an appeal, one has to send all of the papers from the trial court to the reviewing court, in this case the Court of Appeals. This is called the record. The record is every single piece of paper from start to finish of the case. The "26 page" final order began with Volume I, Page 350 and ended with page 376. All of the highlighted citations below in my brief are to the very the same order that the GA COA affirms as true fact, with the corresponding enumerations of error that the COA deliberated disregarded: 


http://www.scribd.com/doc/120093414/In-the-Court-of-Appeals

THE SAME 26 PAGE ORDER

My main argument of my appeal, was that Judge Kell had removed my child FROM MY HOME, without finding me unfit. The remaining 16 enumerations of error that the GA Court of Appeals deliberately did not review, are all shown  in my brief with citations to the very same 26 page order that the COA confirms itself as true. If the Final Order alone was enough for the COA and it confirms that it is "true", then how did it miss, that the order says more than once that my daughter was in fact back in my care? If it could find from the order that at one time the grandparents were "raising" my child, it too clearly saw that my daughter was back in my care, utilizing the very same order and made a conscious decision to ignore this fact. As such, my remaining enumerations, which all concerned this very fact and cited to the same order, could and should have been reviewed as to how the trial court applied the law- or didn't- to this fact. Instead, this court chose what it would review using the order for a favorable outcome for Judge Kell. In other words, the order was sufficient for them to affirm the trial court's order, but not sufficient to utilize for review for error. Which one is it? It can't validate the order and disregard it at the same time.

One can even see the the deliberateness of this court when reading its order to affirm, specifically the wording "At the onset" of the case, a deliberate intent to mislead anyone to only concentrate on the time spent with the grandparents and that no other time would be considered- including the entire year she was settled back into my home and care. Moreover, if the judge "expressly denied" anything, how did they know that- without transcripts? You could put a footnote on all 26 pages; it doesn't prove what was said in court! To suggest that the entire order was the denial of the motion- almost two months later-  is ludicrous and a deliberate disregard for the proper way to dispose of motion- which is with a separate order. O.C.G.A. 15-6-21.

This kind of deliberate bias, denial of due process and corruption simple can not continue.

GA COURT OF APPEALS USED TRANSCRIPTS AS "EASY WAY OUT" DESPITE THEIR OWN RULE

 

Rule 25. Structure and Content.

(a) Appellant.

The brief of appellant shall consist of three parts:

Part One shall contain a succinct and accurate statement of the proceedings below and the material facts relevant to the appeal and the citation of such parts of the record or transcript essential to a consideration of the errors complained of, and a statement of the method by which each enumeration of error was preserved for consideration. Record and transcript citations shall be to the volume or part of the record or transcript and the page numbers that appear on the appellate record or transcript as sent from the trial court.

I gave the GA Court of Appeals 57 FIFTY SEVEN citations to the record to support the enumerations of error. They didn't need the transcripts and my brief was in compliance with what was necessary to review. They didn't need the transcripts to see that my daughter was living in my home, the order awarding me physical custody was clear. Thus the burden of proof was much higher than the best interest standard, in order to sever my custodial relationship with my daughter.                                     

ENUMERATIONS OF ERROR- TROTTER V. AYRES AS REPORTED IS A LIE

Here are the enumerations of error as promised. The GA Court of Appeals only reviewed the first two. It made up an extra one claiming I enumerated that the GAL had no right to request an evaluation which as you can see- is a lie. I know the law and the Superior Court Rule that says she could, another attempt to try to make me look like I couldn't understand the law. The GA COA then rolled all the rest of them into one answer- O.C.G.A. 19-7-1 was constitutional not because it could argue such with U.S. Supreme Court precedence or the U.S. Constitution- but because their Supreme Court said so. Yet, at the same time, it claimed it couldn't address anything else, because it didn't have the transcripts. These were a prelude to arguments concerning HOW the trial court applied Clark v. Wade. It wasn't an attack on O.C.G.A.19-7-1 at the time. I made the point that the statute didn't apply to me as Clark v. Wade bases whether a parent may enjoy his/her constitutional rights to his/her child, on whether or not the parent has a "parent-child relationship" with the child. I argued that I had not only a parent-child relationship, but a custodial relationship- which is why you will not find exactly where Kiara was living when the judge ruled and was living an entire year before he removed her.

II. ENUMERATION OF ERRORS

1.    The court allowed the Appellees to counterclaim for custody of the child, in response to a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

2.    The court failed to rule on the Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss and attempted to dispose of the motion by way of a footnote on the Final Order on Custody.

3.    The court erred in applying the best interest standard instead of the termination standard.

4.    The court applied a balance of constitutional rights legal theory.

5.    The court erred in finding that hostility towards the Appellees was parental misconduct.

6.    The court erred by finding the Mother fit and abusive.

7.    The court erred in deeming the child demonstrating secretive behavior as evidence of harm to the child.

8.    The court erred in not considering the ruling of the first trier of fact and specific finding that the Appellees kept the child without legal custody.

9.    The court violated the Appellant’s constitutional rights to care, custody and control of her child.

10. The court asserted that the child began living with the Appellees between 2004 and 2005.

11.The court erred in finding that the Father was awarded primary custody on 4 March 2004.

12.The court erred in finding that the Mother lost custody of the child because she moved to Germany with the child.

13. The court erred in finding that best interest standard completely replaced the fitness standard.

14. The court erred in going beyond the presumption of fitness.

15. The court applied a legal formula where one element of the formula has been overruled.

16.The court replaced the Appellant’s fundamental right with a significant right.

17. The court found a significant risk of long term harm.

18. The court denied the Appellant Due Process.