1

In The

One Hundred-Sixteenth Congress

For The

United States of America

Petition of Remonstrance
U.S. Constitutional Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8

Nathan M Altenhofen VS Ector County, Et al

Plaintiff Defendants

Amendments: 13 & 14 to the Constitution of the United States

EMOLUMENTS VIOLATIONS
Pursuant to: 18 U.S.C. §§§ 241, 242, 643,
EXECUTIVE ORDER: 13818, ON HUMAN TRAFFICKING
(Public Law 114-328) section 212(f)
8 U.S.C. 1182(f), (INA), 3 U.S.C. section 301
28 U.S.C. § 1927, / 29 U.S.C. § 1109
Texas Mandatory Reporting Law - Section 261.101 (Protect Child)
Title 2, Chapter 7, Subchapter B, Section 7.011
Order Dismissing Without Prejudice dated December 14, 2016
Title 7. Offenses Against Property, CH 31. Theft, Sec. 31.01.
84th Congressional Action: Judicial Order Dated July 7, 2015
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ORDER FOR THE 244TH DISTRICT COURT OF
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ECTOR COUNTY
THE HONORABLE: SAM SPARKS THE HONORABLE: JAMES RUSH
CASE NO: A-17-CR-181-SS CASE NO. C-16-0692-CR
ASSIGNING JURISDICTION
UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1443 Terminated by Judge Sparks

Reus excipiendo fit actor

Judici officium suum excedenti non paretur, Judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur
Praetextu liciti non debet admitti illicitum, Praetextu legis injustia agens duplo puniendus
Nathan M. Altenhofen
2541 South IS 35, Suite 200 #102, Round Rock, TX, 78664
Phone: (702) 218-1855 Email: Altenhofen.FCLUExec@gmail.com
 2

PREFACE
This Remonstrance / Brief is prepared as an addition to previous Reporting
to address the continuing emoluments violations as related to Agency Practices,
Guidance Documents, Court Rules, and Integrity Issues of this matter consisting of
9,687 words, on 40 pages. (not including Appendix)
It is with a certain sense of historical irony that of all the “Words” or
“Phrases” recognized by this Congress, and the People just so happens to be
among the reason/s / cause/s for this document as follows:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
It is this reason the Founders possessed the wisdom, and experience, to
insert in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8, & the Original 13th Amendment into our
Constitution as follows to allow us to defend against Foreign Ideologies that
proceed on principles unrecognizable to us as Americans as follows:
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person
holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of
the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind
whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
Amendment 13 to the Constitution of the United States
“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain, any title
of nobility or honor, or shall, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from
any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a
citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust
or profit under them, or either of them.

Our Style and form of Government is based on 3 Pillars of Law with only 2
Lawful Jurisdictions. Land (Civil Defense) and Water (Contract Law, or
Commerce). The questions to be answered in this case by the Congress are
predicated on the Lawful Process as we proceed through the Due Process Clause of
the subsequent 14th Amendment.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any
 3

person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
(Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491(1966))

 Justitia est libertate prior. Justice comes before Liberty.

 Justitia nemini neganda est. Justice is to be denied to no one.
 Jus et fraus nunquam cohabitant. Right and fraud never abide together.

1) How is it anything less than Treason to continue to deny this Petitioner true
Justice under the Law by not enforcing perjury statutes against Government
Actors, in positions of Emoluments, knowing these three (3) most
fundamental Principles and Practices of Law?

2) How does the Congress reconcile (hold accountable) the Bad Actors in using
The Declaration Of Independence’s declared acts of tyranny like a “Check
List” of things “To Do” in these cases to perpetuate litigation, and those
actions not constitute Treason on the Citizens of Texas?

3) How is Title 4 et al of the Social Security Act (unlawful Emolument/s)

anything but practicing Baratry and Extortion under the Color of Law;
knowing unlawful incarceration is the end result as clearly established in this
case pursuant to "Obstruction of Justice Law” in combination & these two
Treatises? (see current Amended Motion for Enforcement of Child and Health
Support / Revoke Suspension)
A) Treatise on Law Malicious Prosecution/s
B) Treatise on False Arrest & Imprisonment/s
4) Pursuant to the attached Order establishing the Emoluments of The 446th
District Court in being deficient of “Not” providing required Constitutional
Protections in accordance with Mason’s Manual item 10 of that Process;
Cause for Oversight Action to correct this deficiency grants Standing to the
Oversight Power/s of Congress to correct this error.
 4

GRIEVANCES OF REDRESS / CAUSE/S OF ACTION/S

Ubi jus, ibi remedium, Where there is a Right, there is a remedy
I Resolutions Providing Equal Protections to this Petitioner with Expedited
Safe Return of Child C.M.A. with Future Protections in Place

II Impeachment of Ector County District Attorney Bobby Bland & Former

Judge Scott Layh.

III Criminal Accountability of Bad Actors Connected to the Fraudulent

Handling of the Child Abuse Forensic Interview of June 18, 2015. Specifically,
Deputy Sheriff Javier Leyva.

IV Void Every Action, Hearing and Order of Scott Layh for Case-CC2-24, 836

V Criminal Accountability of Individuals Connected to the Frauds, Extortion

& Perjury in the Motion for Enforcement of Child Support and to Revoke
Suspension of Commitment. Specifically, Christina Bush & Anthony Robles

VI Unconstitutional Statutes Granting Unlawful Emoluments, Providing False

Immunities, and Usurping Rights Are Immediately Void in the State of Texas and
Reviewed by US Congress of all (50) States.

VII Accountability Associated with the Multiple US Constitutional Violations

That Denied Petitioner Altenhofen Liberty Interest (Twice) & Removal of
Petitioners Jury Demand.

VIII Honorable Oversight Regarding the Overdue Due Process of Initial Injury to
Child Case and Immediate Investigations Regarding the Child Abuse Cover-up

IX Review of all (50) states Legislative Process, Emphasizing the Guaranteed

Right of 'We the People' to Redress Grievances and not Excluding the Petition of
Remonstrance Process.

X Petitioner Altenhofen will Remove 'No Confidence' of Lt Governor Dan

Patrick, if Resolution/Order Includes Petitioner's Input/Inclusion While Educating
the Legislative Process Regarding the Masons Manual or any Agreement that
Covers this Significant Oversight Neglect in Altenhofen V Ector County.
 5

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

E~ Clause®
Christopher E Hallett
E~Clause® LLC (L17000211617)
Loss Prevention Practice
(Lic. No. 443079 / Florida Notary No. GG154748)
16062 South West 34 Court Road
Ocala, Florida, 34473
Email: eclausellc@gmail.com

1. Anthony Robles
307 North Grant, Suite 200, TX 79761
E-mail: info@anthonyrobleslaw.com
Texas Bar No:

2. Office of Attorney General

300 W. 15th St, Austin, TX 78701
E-mail: CSD-legal-163@texasattorneygeneral.gov
Texas Bar No:

3. Kevin Acker (Appellant Attorney in lower court)

E-mail: Kevin.acker@hotmail.com
Texas Bar No:

4. Christina Mendoza
????????????????????????????
 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Content Page
Preface …………….…..……………………………………………………….. 2
Grievances of Redress / Cause/s of Action/s …………………………………... 4
Identities of Parties and Counsel …..………………………………………….. 5
Table of Contents …..……………………………………………………….. 6
Appendix Cover Sheet …….…………………………………………………….. 7
Table of Authorities …..…………………………………………………….….. 8
The Declaration of Independence ……………………………………….…. 12
Cases Studied …………………….…..………………………………………… 18
The Facts in Dad’s Own Words ……………………………………….……... 20
The Facts as Reflected in the Record/s …………………………………………. 26
Loss of Constitutional Integrity …….……………………………..……………. 28
The Negative Nexus …(Based in Law & its Core Concepts)…………………. 30
Personal Bias as an Integrity Issue ………………………………..……………. 33
Conclusions …………………………………………………………………….. 33
LOSS PREVENTION & CO-AUTHOR FOLLOW-UP ……………………… 34
Notice of Payment Due ………………………………..…………………. 39
Practitioners Affidavit ……..…………………………………………………… 40
All known interested parties to this matter ……………………….….…………. 40
Texas Federal Court Order in Support …………………………………………. 41
Texas Mandatory Reporting Law ………………………………………………. 43
Order Dismissing Without Prejudice …………………………………………… 44
Order establishing the Emoluments of the 446th District Court …………..……. 47
Attorney General Ken Paxton Guidance Letter .………………………………... 48
.
 7

APPENDIX
Content Tab
Ector County Court Docket ……….……..………………………………………. 1
Transcript from Forensic Interview ……..………………………………………. 2
Actions taken by counsel in defense of his client …(ignored by the court)……. 3
Transfer Order February 8, 2018 ……….……..…………………………………. 4
Fraudulent Pleading and Proposed Order by Opposition ………………………. 5
Evidence of Transaction history proving Fraud ……….……..………………… 6
Complaint Brief from the Federal District Court ……………………………….. 7
Appendix from the Federal District Court ..……………………….……….. 8
Affidavit signed in January 2018 ………..…………………………………….. 9
Executive Order 13818 ……………………………………………………….. 10
Prohibition on improper Guidance Documents ……………………………….. 11
Treatise on false arrest and imprisonment …………………………………….. 12
Treatise of Impeachment/s …………………………………………………….. 13
Scamming The Misunderstood Confidence Man …(Gorgeous George)..………. 14
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Journal ………………………………………. 15
Sanctions Imposed by Courts on Attorneys who Abuse Judicial Process ……… 16
Monell Claims ……….………………………………………………………….. 17
Texas Constitution ………..…………………………………………………….. 18
Practitioner’s Judicial Report ……………………………………………..…….. 19
.
 8

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Black’s Law Dictionary, Tenth Edition, pages of text researched & referenced

Antitrust Law (1890) ……………………………………………………… pg 115

Bad-faith enforcement (1968) …(definition 2 bullet)………….…….…. pg 166
Badge of fraud (18c) …………….…………………………………….…. pg 166
Badge of slavery (17c) …………….…………………………………….…. pg 166
Badger game (1858) ……………...…………………………………….…. pg 166
Best interest of the child (1876) ………………………………………..… pg 191
Best-interest-of-the-child-doctrine (1954) ……………………………..… pg 191
Breach of Loyalty (16c) ………………………………………………..… pg 226
Breach of Statutory Duty (1844) ………………………………………..…. pg 226
Administrative Collateral Estoppel ………………………………………... pg 318
Offensive Collateral Estoppel ……………………………………………... pg 318
Confidence (14c) …………………………………………………………… pg 361
Confidence Game (1856) …………………………………………………… pg 361
Confidence Trick ……..…………………………………………………… pg 361
Confidence Man (1849) …………………………………………………… pg 361
Constitutional-Doubt Canon ………………………………………………. pg 377
Constitutional-fact Doctrine (1937) ……………..………………………… pg 377
Crimen Falsi (17c) …………………………………………………………. pg 454
Dereliction of Duty ……………………………………………………….. pg 537
Derelict-official act (1912) ………………………………………………… pg 537
emolument (15c) …………………………………………………………… pg 638
Emoluments Clause (1991) ……………………………………………… pg 638
Estoppel (definition 3) ……………………………………………….…….. pg 667
Falsus in uno Doctrine (1956) ……………………………………………. pg 720
 9

Fraud (14c) …………………………………………………………….…. pg 775

Advanced fee fraud (1981) …………………………………………….…. pg 775
Promissory fraud (1934) ……………………………………………….…. pg 777
Extrinsic fraud (1851) ………………………………………………….…. pg 775
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine (1979) ………………………………. pg 784
Fruits of a crime (1854) …………………………………………………… pg 785
Agency Jurisdiction ……………………………………………………….. pg 980
Lex Scribonia …………………………………………………..……….… pg 1052
Liability ……………………………………………………………..……. pg 1053
Absolute Liability ………………………………………………………… pg 1053
Malfeasance ……………………………..………….…………………… pg 1100
Misfeasance ………………………………..……….…………………… pg 1150
Legal Monopoly (18c) …………………………………………………….. pg 1160
Monopoly (16c) ……………………………………….…………………… pg 1160
Bilateral Monopoly (1906) …………………………………………..…… pg 1160
Monopoly Leveraging (1982) ……………………………………………... pg 1160
Monopoly Power (1954) ………………………………………………..… pg 1160
Nonfeasance ……………………………………….……………………… pg 1216
Parental-preference doctrine (1974) ……………………………………... pg 1298
.
 10

U.S. CODES
Breach of Trust / Fiduciary Duty – 29 U.S. Code § 1109

Libel – 28 U.S. Code § 4101

Monopolies – 15 U.S. Code § 2

Counsel’s liability for excessive costs / Vexatious Litigation – 28 U.S. Code § 1927

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, - 15 U.S.C. § 16(b)-(h)

Criminal Frauds - 18 U.S. Codes, §§§ 1001, 1031, 1038 (a) Criminal Violation
(1), (b) Civil Action

Perjury. 18 U.S. Code § 1621

Obstruction of Justice - 18 U.S.C. §§ 1510, and 1513

Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant - 18 U.S. Code § 1512

False Claims Act - 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733

Damages for unjust conviction – 28 U.S.C. § 1495

Unjust Conviction Law – 18 U.S.C. sec. 729 – 732 [May 24, 1938, ch. 266, 52 Stat.
438]

Unjust Enrichment / Quantum Meruit – 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. 29 U.S.C. § 621

et seq.

Mismanagement of Public Funds / Emoluments Violations – 18 U.S.C. § 643

Kidnapping – 18 U.S.C. § 1201 & 42 U.S.C. § 5791

Promotion of Professional Review Activities - 42 U.S. Code Subchapter I

Malfeasance - 54 U.S. Code § 101115

 11

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty
dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall
be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the
rules of the common law.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment XI
The Eleventh Amendment does not protect state officials from claims for
prospective relief when it is alleged that state officials acted in violation of federal
law, nor does it usurp the Fourteenth Amendment Rights retained by the People.
Tolman v. Finneran, 171 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D. Mass. 2001)
Amendment XIV
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and
granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, which
included former slaves recently freed. In addition, it forbids states from denying
any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLES / CLAUSES

Article four (4), Section four (4)

Article one (1), Section nine (9), Clause eight (8)
 12

Declaration of Independence

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to
assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the
Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions
of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the
separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—  That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed,—  That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing
its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established
should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all
experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are
sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are
accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably
the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new
Guards for their future security.—  Such has been the patient sufferance of these
Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former
Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a
history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the
establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be
submitted to a candid world.
 13

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and

necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and

pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his
Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly
neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large

districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of
Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and
formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual,

uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public
Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with
his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with

manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others
to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of
Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise;
the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of
invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that

purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners;
refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and
raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his

Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
 14

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of
their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of

Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the
Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to

the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to

our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent
to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting
them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they
should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing
Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of
the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences For

abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring
Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging
its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument
for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and
altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
 15

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves

invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his

Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas,
ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our
people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to

compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun
with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the
most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of the Head of a civilized
nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas
to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of
their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has

endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless
Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished
destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most
humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.
A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant,
is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to
our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their
legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded
them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have
appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by
the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would
inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf
to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the
 16

necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of
mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General

Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the
rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People
of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are,
and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from
all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them
and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free
and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace,
contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which
Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a
firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each
other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

[The 56 signatures on the Declaration were arranged in six columns:]

[Column 1]
Georgia: Button Gwinnett Lyman Hall George Walton

[Column 2]
North Carolina: William Hooper Joseph Hewes John Penn
South Carolina: Edward Rutledge Thomas Heyward, Jr. Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

[Column 3]
Massachusetts: John Hancock Maryland: Samuel Chase William Paca Thomas
Stone Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia: George Wythe Richard Henry Lee Thomas Jefferson Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr. Francis Lightfoot Lee Carter Braxton

[Column 4]
Pennsylvania: Robert Morris Benjamin Rush Benjamin Franklin John Morton
George Clymer James Smith George Taylor James Wilson George Ross
 17

Delaware: Caesar Rodney George Read Thomas McKean

[Column 5]
New York: William Floyd Philip Livingston Francis Lewis Lewis Morris
New Jersey: Richard Stockton John Witherspoon Francis Hopkinson John Hart
Abraham Clark

[Column 6]
New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett William Whipple
Massachusetts: Samuel Adams John Adams Robert Treat Paine Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins William Ellery
Connecticut: Roger Sherman Samuel Huntington William Williams Oliver
Wolcott
New Hampshire: Matthew Thornton
 18

CASES STUDIED
Bloomgarden v. B Coyer 479 F. 2d 201 (1973)
BRADY v. MARYLAND 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
Brennan v. Stewart, 834 F.2d 1248, 1252 (5th Cir. 1988)
Cavanaugh v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 941 F.Supp. 872, 879 (D. Minn. 1996)
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)
Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24 (1923)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 155-56, 52 L. Ed. 714, 28 S. Ct. 441 (1908)
Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 664, 39 L. Ed. 2d 662, 94 S. Ct. 1347 (1974)
Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99 (1945)
Gould v. Artisoft, Inc.,1 F.3d 544, 548 (7th Cir. 1993)
Haines v. Kerner, 92 S. Ct. 747 (1969)
Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32, 40-41 (1940)
Hardwick V. Vreeken, (2017)
Heckler v. Community Health Services of Crawford Cty., Inc., 467 US 51 -
Supreme Court (1984)

Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990)

Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 905-06 (9th Cir.2001)
Jenkins v. McKeithern 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969)
John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529 (1900)
Johnson v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. (2005)
Leibowitz v. Cornell Univ. (2nd Cir. 2009)
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
Meyer v. Nebraska 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401 (1923)
Miller vs. U.S. , 230 F. 486,489 (5th Cir 1956)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491(1966)
Mitchum v. Foster, 407 US 225 - Supreme Court (1972)
 19

Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980)

Plummer v. State, 135 Ind. 308, 34 N.E. 968 (1893)
Porter v. Osborne, 546 F.3d 1131, 1137 (9th Cir.2008)
Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 151 F.2d 240 (3rd Cir 1945)
Sampson v. Murray 415 U.S. 61, 88 (1974)
Schumacher v. Schumacher, 627 N.W.2d 725, 729 (2001)
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F 945 (9th Cir 1973)
Sims V. Aherns, 271 s.w. 720 (1925)
ServiceMaster of St. Cloud v. GAB Business Servs., Inc., 544 N.W.2d 302, 306 (1996)
Sperry v. State of Florida ex re. The Florida Bar, (1963)
Stepnes v. Ritschel, 663 F.3d 952, 963 (8th Cir. 2011)
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., 297 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Minn. 1980)
Tolman v. Finneran, 171 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D. Mass. 2001)
Ulrich v. Butler No. 09-7660 (2010)
U.S. V American Telephone & Telegraph, (D.D.C. 1982)
United States v. Microsoft Corporation 253 F. 3d 34 (D.C. Cir 2001)
Warnock v. Pecos County, 88 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 07/08/1996)
Wilkinson v. Torres, 610 F .3d 546, 554 (9th Cir. 2010)
Wyatt v. Cole 504 U.S. 158 (1992)
Zirinsky v. Sheehan, 413 F.2d 481 (8th Cir. 1969)
 20

THE FACT OF THIS CASE AS STATED BY MR. ALTENHOFEN

(Initial Frauds - Child Abuse Cover-up)

1) June 12, 2015 Christina Mendoza contacts 'Unlce'/deputy Sheriff Javier Leyva
to assist her in covering up her assault of our son. Defendant Mendoza and
Leyva's roll establishes the “Modus Operandi". Confidence (14c), Confidence
Game (1856) and Confidence Man (1849) Mendoza is cohabitating with
Leyva's nephew and her former divorce attorney, Daniel Sarabia Jr. (see Tab 8)

2) At least one conversation occurs between criminal case agent 'Uncle/deputy

Sheriff Leyva and County Court of Law#2 Judge, Scott Layh. (misconduct,
witness tampering and conflict of interest)

3) On June 18, 2015 My son, Christian Altenhofen has a Forensic Interview

conducted by Harmony Home in Odessa, TX. This interview was set up by
'Uncle/deputy Sheriff Leyva, who was also acting in a familial relationship to
the offending parent. At the end of this Forensic Interview, my son, an 8-year
old child was able to identify the Case Steering attempts by the Harmony Home
Interviewer, whose questions were directed from 'Uncle/deputy Sheriff Leyva.
(Child Abuse Cover-up time period has officially began, Tab 3, Item 21 of the
exhibit)

4) Judge Scott Layh, was on the Board of Directors at Harmony Home.

Constitutional-Doubt Canon, Conflict of Interest and Misconduct The Movant's
(offending parent) mother, Rosa Mendoza, worked for attorney 'Ruff' Ahders
for approximately 10 years. Ruff and Paula Ahder's co-founded Harmony
Home in Odessa. (Tab 3, Item 8A of the exhibit)
 21

5) 'Uncle/deputy Sheriff Leyva and Judge Scott Layh have broken their
Respective Oath's, Breached the Public's Trust and their Departments Fiduciary
responsibilities.

6) A. On June 24, 2015 I am arrested for Custody Interference. Case Agent is

'Uncle'/deputy Sheriff Leyva.

7) July 13, 2015 the Forensic Interview was 'Quashed' by Judge Scott Layh.
Fraudulent 'here-say' statements by offending parent Mendoza's attorney
Anthony Robles were allowed. Multiple Case Steering Tactics and this initial
'Waltz' had began at this Temporary Custody Hearing. (Tab 1)

8) 'Uncle/deputy Sheriff Leyva provides a Case Steering report with a Fraudulent

summary of the Forensic Interview leaving out 16+ child abuse 'red flags' and
child abuse outcry's. (Tab 8)

Regarding Order to Appear and Show Cause (2-1-18)

9) I, Respondent, Nathan Altenhofen am Ordered to appear in court on February

26, 2018 to respond to a Motion for Enforcement of Child Support and Medical
Support and to Revoke Suspension of Commitment filed by Attorney Anthony
Robles for Movant Christina Bush. (1-24-18, 1-30-18) (Tab 1)

10) 30 violation/claims in this above Motion for Enforcement are criminally,

fraudulent entries.

11) The remaining 24 violation/claims (#31 thru #54) from the above Motion are
connected to Scott Layh's Order from a Motion Hearing that occurred on
December 14, 2015.
 22

12) I, Nathan Altenhofen, thru my attorney Kevin Acker, filed a Motion to

Disqualify Scott Layh on November 15, 2017. Scott Layh's resignation was
accepted by Ector County Commissioners on December 21, 2017, effective
December 30, 2017. (Tab 3)

13) There was no answer to the Motion to Disqualify. This is a clear Integrity of
the Process issue. (Tab 1)

14) By email, on 2-6-18, I informed my attorney Kevin Acker, my wishes for him
to file a Notice of Appeal regarding the above Order to Appear.

15) Although the lack of legal, ethical action by my attorney these past two weeks
in regards to communication, evidence and the Notice of Appeal mentioned in 6
and 9 respectively of this affidavit, it should be noted that my attorney has had
at least two significantly honorable actions to date towards the safety of my
son. A) He was able to honorably find a path for me to watch my sons Forensic
Interview, despite numerous attorneys and Ector County elected officials
steering the release of this video from me for 18 months. B) The honorable
Motion to Disqualify Scott Layh, a sitting Judge, regardless of his reasons. I
recognize the 'boxed in' position he might currently feel. There is also the
possibility this evidence was given to appropriate individuals for honorable
reasons. There is also the possibility a new 'Waltz' is occurring. Either way, for
the safety of my son, I believe this affidavit was necessary in protecting the
Integrity of this Court, In the Interest of Justice and protecting the Honorable
Actions as stated by attorney Kevin Acker.
 23

Regarding criminally, fraudulent actions from Motion for Enforcement of

Child Support and Medical Support and to Revoke Suspension of
Commitment. (1-24-18, 1-30-18)

16) Perjury, Subordination of Perjury, Fraud and Vexatious Litigation, I believe at

least one and the probability of all of this occurred in each of the first 30
entry/claims (#1 thru #30) within the Motion for Enforcement. (Tab 5)

17) I provided by email to my attorney, proof of payments for 27 of the 30

criminally fraudulent violation/claims on January 25, 2018. (Tab 6)

18) Approximately $2650 of the(criminally) fraudulent arrears of these same

medical payments and interest were added to my initial Child Support case that
I have been forced to pay, which have significantly damaged my credit for 20
months.

19) This most recent Motion for Enforcement provides Beyond Reasonable Doubt
that those fraudulent arrears were intentionally provided to the State of Texas at
the beginning of this Child Support case.

20) The initial fraudulent arrears and now the recent Motion for Enforcement, in
my opinion, provide Beyond Reasonable Doubt that Extortion under Color of
Law has now occurred.

21) This criminally, fraudulent Motion for Enforcement was the first document
filed by the offending parent after my attorney filed a Motion to Disqualify and
a Writ of Attachment, summarizing how a Child Abuse case has been derailed
by the fraudulent actions of Uncle/deputySheriff Javier Leyva, who previously
 24

acted as the Movant's Uncle, while the Uncle/Sheriff's nephew, Daniel Sarabia
Jr. was cohabitating with the Movant. (Tab 1)

22) I have had a total of 46 hours of possession (supervised) with my son for 2016
and 2017 combined and I have not seen my son since September 7, 2017,
without sufficient cause. (42 USC § 1983 § 1985 § 1986) (Tab 1)

23) This is the 3rd attempt by the Movant (twice thru her attorney) to fraudulently
incarcerate me: A) Fraudulent criminal case was terminated in US District
court on May 3, 2017. This was the case mentioned in #12 above, filed by case
agent Deputy Javier Leyva B) December 14, 2015 temporary hearing in Ector
County Court of Law #2. (please see Motion to Disqualify Scott Layh, this
Motion Hearing is also associated to the misconduct/fraud, Beyond Reasonable
Doubt, associated with the departing Judge, this Motion Hearing is also
associated to the fraudulent actions of Uncle/Sheriff Leyva mentioned above
and an Objection Hearing from 10-20-15. This was accomplished discretely
with one blanket case steering sentence). C) This current criminally, fraudulent
Motion for Enforcement. (18 USC § 643 - Emoluments violations)

24) My sons Child Abuse Cover-up by multiple Bad Actors within Ector County
is now entering 32 months. (Please see Writ of Attachment filed on November
15, 2017) (Tab 1)

25) Attached is an accurate summary from my sons Forensic Interview on June

18, 2015 at Harmony Home in Odessa, Texas. This interview is directly
connected to the misconduct & fraudulent actions of Scott Layh, associated
with the Motion to Disqualify filed on November 15, 2017. This interview is
 25

directly connected to the fraudulent actions of Uncle/Sheriff Leyva conspiring

with his then cohabitating niece, the movant Christina Bush. This interview is
directly connected to the Writ of Attachment, which was filed prior to this
current criminally, fraudulent Motion for Enforcement. (Obstruction of Justice)
(Tab 2)

In Reference to Office of Inspector General Referral Number: 2017-212217

26) Please also take under advisement a series of email communications dating
from December 14, 2016, to December 15, 2016. (10 in total)

27) Recognizing the serious nature of this issue; all efforts to accomplish this time
sensitive task are being coordinated through Kevin Acker, of Acker Law, as he
is lead counsel in the case in question.

28) At this time I wish to call to attention Tab 4 of the Appendix containing the
Transfer to the 446th District Court dated February 6, 2018. Everything
contained in this follow up report is reflective of actions taken prior to this
honorable order.
 26

THE FACT OF THIS CASE AS REFLECTED IN THE COURT RECORDS

29) This case is nothing more than another “Vexatious Silver Bullet Litigation”
based on what we have already seen in the Federal District Court in Austin in
early 2017. As stated in Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(c) Disqualifications;
a. A deposition must not be taken before a person who is any party’s
relative, employee, or attorney; who is related to or employed by
any party’s attorney; or who is financially interested in the action.
[see Complaint Brief & Evidence Appendix Tabs 6 & 7]
The concerns of this office center around the financial portion of this rule;
paying close attention to the financial ties, and other influences, as it relates to
the bench, and its associated Canon’s in common to this rule, in this case.

30) The chain of events which unfolded within that case by the Texas Attorney
General’s Office referring to the case as a “Skein”, implying a tangled web of
undecipherable falsehoods absolutely warrants further scrutiny at this point.
[Lex punit mendaciam; The Law punishes falsehood; paying due respect to the
Ninth Commandment]

31) The “Skein” reference as applied to the seriousness of the clear “Child Abuse
Cover-up” [29 U.S. Code §1109] with regard to the minor child is the worst, yet
most clearly evidenced, case of local “Good Ol-boy” corruption, and misuse of
an Inherited Emolument, [see Article 1, Section 3, of the Texas Constitution]
this office has ever had the burden of baring witness to. [outlined in Tabs 7 &
8] It is concurrently why this office has kept a watchful eye on this case as
stated in my preliminary “Practitioner’s Judicial Report” (page 16) also
Appendix’d here for reference purposes. (Tab 18) [Leges vigilantibus, non
 27

dormietibus subveniunt; The Laws aid those who keep watch, not those who
sleep.]

32) This case is also where the Honorable Sam Sparks recognized the efforts
taken against my client, Mr. Altenhofen with their “Smear Campaign”,
removing the prosecutorial gun pointing at my client by terminating the
fraudulent criminal case, and clearing my client’s good name. Which is also
clearly why these actors are continuing to try to “Smear Campaign” Mr.
Altenhofen again with this bogus / vexatious litigation; [see Tabs 5 & 6] this
conduct clearly falls within the realm of the following case:
a. Johnson v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 173 N.C. App. 365,
373, 618 S.E.2d 867, 872 (2005) “‘Conduct is extreme and
outrageous when it is so outrageous in character, and so extreme in
degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be
regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized
community.’”
 28

LOSS OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY

33) When in terms of “The Court”, or any other Branch of our Government is
concerned, the first and foremost questions when assigning an Inherited
Emolument that need to be answered correctly are:
 What do the words “Your Honor” mean to you?
 Do they simply imply a “Job Title”?
 Or do they mean “You’re Honorable”?
 Is this “Repugnant” to our form of Government?

34) The Law as this governing body writes it, is repetitively “not” being
practiced with the “Good Faith Intentions” mandated when writing it. These
overly burdensome practices, rules, and processes used by the current
“Practicing Entity” known as the “BAR” have, by definition, created serious
“Integrity Issues” in violation of the Seventh and Ninth Amendments as written
in the Constitution of The United States. The attached orders represent clear
“Integrity Issues” when interpreting “What the Constitutions says”. Two of the
tools this entity repetitively uses to usurp the “Plain Language” of the
Constitution and the Law are:
 The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
 The Best Interest Doctrine
i. Neither of which can be defined / explained in plain language therefore
they are clearly “Repugnant” to the Practice of Law.
ii. Rooker-Feldman is the court’s clear and only way to avoid these cases,
but fails to admit the Repugnancy of the Practice.
iii. The Best Interest Doctrine is Arrogant Presumption at best.
 29

35) The Seventh Amendment says: In Suits at common law, where the value in
controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be
preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any
Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

36) The Ninth Amendment says: The enumeration in the Constitution of

certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by
the people.

37) Knowing these two (2) Amendments read as they do; can someone explain
how the orders attached to this Report do NOT negatively affect the Integrity
of The Court, and The Constitution of The United States as it is written?

 Explain how they represent anything more than an entity filled with
contempt, arrogance, and negative biases against the Constitution and / or
our Republican form of Government?
 Explain how this body is supposed to maintain its relationship of “Duty
and Trust” with the “People” of “The United States of America”; when the
clarity of the misuse of the inherited emoluments paint such an “Un-just”
picture?
 Explain how these Monopolies, mono or bilateral, do not encroach on the
Separation of Powers?
 Thinking this case is a bad episode of “The Twilight Zone” is close, but try
reading the book by George Orwell titled “1984”.
 30

THE “NEGATIVE NEXUS”

Negatio destruit negationem, et ambae faciunt affirmationem
Negatio duplex est affirmatio
Article IV (4), Section IV (4), 29 U.S. Code § 1109
Article I (1), Section IX (9), Clause VIII (8), 28 U.S. Code § 1927
__________________________________________________________________

The following is what has transpired in the lower Family Court in this case
through these “Defective Practices” which establish this “Negative Nexus”.
[A significant portion of evidence and testimony corrupted / tainted, and not based
in truth or on fact/s]

[Negative Nexus] [(-1 x -1) = 1]

What the parties see = What the court sees
__________________________________________________________________

The first step is to identify each factor in context of the current practice/s for
closer examination.

a. The first value of (-1) is evidence presented (or exculpatory evidence

intentionally obscured from the eyes of the court) under the premise of being
used against the “Targeted Parent” in family court, or prosecutorial
presumption of counsel unbeknownst to the court. As the court accepts these
presentations in “Good Faith” as it has since the 1700’s.

b. The “Multiplication Sign (X)” establishes the elapsed time meaning the first
factor of (-1) can not change. It is now a “Mathematical Constant” in context
from now on. [you can’t un-ring a bell, aka Branding]

i. False allegations of “Interference with Child Custody” in [Case No. C-

16-0692-CR] now clearly established as fraud. [28 U.S. Code §1927]

c. Which brings us to the second factor of (-1) being the conduct of the
practitioner at the time of the presentation. This value is “NOT” a
mathematical constant in context as we can clearly factor out the negative (-)
leaving the value of positive one (1); or the practitioner as a mathematical
constant factoring out only his / her conduct.
 31

i. At least one conversation occurs between criminal case agent

'Uncle/deputy Sheriff Leyva and County Court of Law#2 Judge, Scott
Layh. (misconduct, witness tampering and conflict of interest)

ii. Judge Scott Layh, was on the Board of Directors at Harmony Home.
Constitutional-Doubt Canon, Conflict of Interest and Misconduct The
Movant's (offending parent) mother, Rosa Mendoza, worked for attorney
'Ruff' Ahders for approximately 10 years. Ruff and Paula Ahder's co-
founded Harmony Home in Odessa. 29 U.S. Code § 1109, 28 U.S. Code
§ 1927, Owen v. City of Independence, (1980)

iii. July 13, 2015 the Forensic Interview was 'Quashed' by Judge Scott Layh.
Fraudulent 'here-say' statements by offending parent Mendoza's attorney
Anthony Robles were allowed. Multiple Case Steering Tactics and this
initial 'Waltz' had began at this Temporary Custody Hearing.

iv. Multiple fraudulent elements associated with the objection hearing on

October 20, 2015, now established beyond reasonable doubt confirming
this as a “Child Abuse Cover up”.

v. The fact Scott Layh was under subpoena yet still continued to act against
my client taking multiple actions based on motions filed in July of 2017,
and October of 2017, leaving open probable cause.

vi. Unjust enrichment is an equitable doctrine that provides a remedy where

another party knowingly received something of value to which he / she
was not entitled, and the circumstances are such that it would be unjust
for that person to retain the benefit. [32 CFR §536.52 Schumacher v.
Schumacher, 627 N.W.2d 725, 729 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001)]. A claim in
unjust enrichment lies where the defendant’s conduct is morally wrong.
Id.; see also, ServiceMaster of St. Cloud v. GAB Business Servs., Inc.,
544 N.W.2d 302, 306 (Minn. 1996) (“To establish an unjust enrichment
claim, the claimant must show that the defendant has knowingly received
or obtained something of value for which the defendant ‘in equity and
good conscience’ should pay.”).

d. This process is where my “Fiduciary License No. 443079” becomes

important. This credential qualifies me in the eyes of the court to articulate
what constitutes this “Conduct” as “Bad Conduct”.
 32

As we have now established the “Factors” of the “Equation”; we can now

use principles of higher mathematics / calculus to begin breaking down the any and
all of the negative conduct as it relates to the practice / presentation in family /
equity courts so the new equation looks more like:

[Affectus punitur licet non sequatur effectus]

[Qui destruit medium destruit finem, Lex punit mendaciam]

[Negative Nexus] [(-1 x 1) = -1]

What the parties see = What the court sees

[Non est arctius vinculum inter hominess quam jusjurandum]

[Nec curia deficeret in justitia exhibenda]
[Malitiis hominum est obviandum]
[Lex non novit patrem, nec matriem: solam veritatem]

To put into perspective the implementation of E~Clause® LLC as an

Independent Practice citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 and 37; this report can be explained
mathematically as follows:

[Negative Nexus] (-1)[(-1 x -1) = 1]

What the parties see = What the court sees

Upon reflection of the action/s taken at both State and Federal Court levels; it’s
easy for us to articulate why Congressional Oversight is justified, and appropriate.

[Negative Nexus] -1 ≠ 1
On the “Equity Scale”, the ability to thwart inequities is necessary.

Non est recedendum a communi observantia

Jus et fraus nunquam cohabitant
 33

PERSONAL BIAS AS AN INTEGRITY ISSUE

By citation of the orders attached to this Report, it has become very clear
these lower court’s intentions are to continue to abuse its power granted by this
Branch, and what the Law says by replacing it with their own obscure set of rules
they feel arrogant enough to believe have any force or affect over anyone but them.
The effort to attempt to quash this case in order to continue to maintain their
Criminal Enterprising Swamp; However, they have yet to see the reality in that
there is no swamp left. We drained it the moment Donald J. Trump was sworn into
Office, and reclaimed our rights guaranteed to us under our Founding Documents.
[Maledicta expositio quae corrumpit textum]

CONCLUSIONS
As to the finding of facts, and conclusions of Law in this case are evidently
clear; this case should be considered the Texas “Poster Child Case” of what
“NOT” to do in the future with respect to “Malicious Prosecution” and “The Abuse
of Process” as notated by the attached publications titled:
a. Department of Justice: Prohibition on improper Guidance Documents (Tab 10)
b. Treatise on false arrest or imprisonment (Tab 11)
c. Treatise of Impeachment/s (Tab 12)
d. Scamming, The misunderstood confidence man (Tab 13)
e. Ineffective assistance of counsel (Tab 14)
f. Sanctions imposed by courts on attorneys who abuse Legal Process (Tab 15)
g. Monell Claims (Tab 16)
[Legibus sumptis desinentibus, lege naturae utendum est]
 34

LOSS PREVENTION & CO-AUTHOR FOLLOW-UP

(page 16 of the Appendix’d Report submitted to U.S. Congress October of 2017)

Altenhofen v Texas, Et al (2017)

34) Of all the case work I have assisted with, this case saddens me the most as I
have heard the audio recordings in this case. After listening to them my resolve to
seek Justice in this case became overwhelming strong to me as a father of 5, and
grandfather of 3. The voices still haunt me as we try to proceed to the next tier of
his case while the question of: How did this get suppressed in an Article III Court
of Law? The “Skein” of the attached Title IV Map has me convinced. Enough said.

35) The three (3) tiers of this case are as follows:

Tier 1 was the false allegations of the Criminal Matter. (now cleared)
Tier 2 The Family Law Matter which resulted in the false allegations, and is
currently underway in the lower court.
Tier 3 §1985 & §1986 has yet to be filed, but is a work in progress.

36) This was a case of “Unfinished Business”, or a “Silver Bullet”, in which the
Plaintiff was falsely charged with a crime he did not commit. (just like me by the
way) The obvious motivations in the lower state court were consistent with the
information provided above. The Federal Case was filed on April 19, 2017, and
Reasonable Doubt resulting in the “Termination” of the removed Criminal Case,
clearing the Plaintiff’s good name, was handed down on May 3, 2017.

37) Though the §1983 complaint was ultimately dismissed, the resulting good
that came from it in the short run of returning my friend to his rightful position of
“Good Standing” was reward enough for me. Personally; I consider it a “Victory”
for him, and look forward to the day we can pick up where we left off and protect
his son once and for all. [Le salut du peuple est la supreme loi] I will continue to
stand with my friend until justice has been fully achieved in his cases, and Equal
Protections under the Law therein ultimately preserved.
(end quotation)
The above quotation was prepared post the Federal Case: 1:17 – CV – 0358
– SS, and submitted through my year end reporting as mandated by Congress. In
the interest of keeping that promise I will share with you “why” I made it.
 35

In my father’s living room is an old wooden desk that seems to be out of

place with the surrounding décor. This desk has a history all its own which I will
share with you now. I was barely old enough that my eye level was just that of the
top of that old desk when I casually walked up to my Dad who was sitting there
tinkering with some “thing” he was trying to fix when he heard a little voice say:
“What does that do-dad do Dad?” He turned to me and placed me on his lap
so I could better see as he explained what he was trying to fix. We sat there
together until the task of tinkering with his old circuit tester was completed, and
the device returned to working order. I remember the satisfaction we both felt
when he turned it on and the lights lit up like they were supposed to. We did our
little high-five-father-son thing, and went on with what we were doing.
It wasn’t until the next time I saw him for visitation, which was sporadic at
best in those days, I started to really understand how important that memory was to
him when I heard my step mom ask him where something was, and he answered.
“It’s in the do-dad-desk.” from where ever he was in the house at the time. I
remember being confused as I had never heard him use that description of his desk
before. But after that day; that old desk had become a part of him in a way that
would take me a lifetime to fully comprehend.
Of all the days yet to come in my lifetime; the day I most dread is the day I
look over in my living room, and see “The do-dad-desk” sitting there because the
reality of never seeing my Dad again will become real, but I will try to take
comfort in knowing we always had that memory between us.
My friend and his son possess the “Unalienable God Given Rights endowed
upon them by their Creator” to build their own memories of a “do-dad-desk”, and
every one of us knows it. My work is guided by Principles from the language of
Latin known as “Maxims” as follows:
1. Jus est ars boni et aequi, Law is the science of what is good and just
2. Non est arctius vinculum inter homines quam jusjurandum, There is no closer
(or firmer) link among men than an oath
3. Malitiis hominum est obviandum, The Malicious designs of men must be
thwarted
4. Virum bonum nulla spes ad turpia invitat, No expectation can allure a good
man to evil
5. Pro possessore habetur qui dolo injuriave desiit possidere, A person is
considered a possessor who has ceased possession through fraud or injury
6. Veritas est justitiae mater, Truth is the mother of Justice
7. Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi, Truth fears nothing but to be hidden
8. Veritatem qui non libere pronunciat, proditor est veritatis, One who does not
speak the truth freely is a traitor to the truth
 36

9. Tempis regit factum, Time rules events

10. Juri sanguinis nunquam praescribitur, No prescription or statutory limit runs
against a Right by blood
11. Ubi jus, ibi remedium, Where there is a Right, there is a remedy
12. Droit ne poet pas morier, Right cannot die
13. Rerum suarum quilibet est moderator et arbiter, Everyone is the manager and
disposer of his own matters
14. Uses est dominium fiduciarium, Use is a fiduciary ownership
15. Actus repugnans non potest in esse produci, A repugnant act can not be
brought into being, that is can not be made effectual
16. Maladicta expositio quae corrumpit textum, It is a cursed construction that
corrupts the text
17. Magna culpa dolus est, Great fault (or gross negligence) is the equivalent to
fraud
18. Tortura legum pessima, The torture (or twisting) of Laws is the worst kind of
torture
19. Ad recte docendum oportet primum inquirere nomina quia rerum cognitio a
nominibus rerum dependet, In order rightly to comprehend a thing, it is
necessary first to inquire into the names, for a right knowledge of things
depends on their names
20. Magis jus nostrum quam jus alienum servemus, We should follow our own
rather than a foreign law
21. Verba ordinationis, quando verificari possunt in sua vera significatione, trahi
ad extraneum intellectum non debent, When the words of an ordinance can be
made true in their true signification, they ought not be warped to a foreign
meaning
22. Vulgaris opinio est duplex: orta inter gravis et discretos, quae multum
veritatis habet, et opinion orta inter leves et vulgares hominess, absque specie
veritatis, Common opinion is double: that proceeding from grave and discreet
men, which has much truth in it, and that proceeding from foolish vulgar men,
without any semblance of truth in it
23. Vinco vincentem, ergo multo magis vinco te, If I conquer your conqueror, by
so much more do I conquer you
24. Ratio in jure aequitas integra, Reason in Law is the perfect equity
25. Aequitas vult spoliatos, vel deceptos, vel lapsos ante omnia restitui, Equity
wishes the Plundered, the deceived, and the ruined, above all, to have restitution
26. Intentio caeca mala, A concealed intention is an evil one
27. Justitia est libertate prior. Justice comes before Liberty
28. Justitia nemini neganda est. Justice is to be denied to no one
 37

29. Baratriam committit qui propter pecuniam justitiam baractat, A person is

guilty of barratry who sells Justice for money
30. Nimia subtilitas in jure reprobatur, Too much subtlety in Law is condemned
31. Jus et fraus nunquam cohabitant. Right and fraud never abide together
32. Lex uno ore omnes alloquitur, The Law speaks to all with one mouth
33. Deceptis, non decipientibus, jura subveniunt, The Law helps those being
deceived, not those deceiving
34. Lex punit mendaciam, The Law punishes falsehood
35. Lex injustia non est lex, An unjust Law is not a Law
36. Praetextu liciti non debet admitti illicitum, What is illegal ought not be entered
under the pretext of legality
37. Lex specialis derogat legi generali, A special Law detracts from the general
Law
38. Nil agit exemplum litem quod lite resolvit, A precedent accomplishes nothing
if it settles one dispute by raising another
39. Quod per me non possum, nec per alium, What I cannot do in person, I also
cannot do through the agency of another
40. Quod per recordum probatum non debet esse negatum, What is proved by the
record ought not be denied
41. Lex non praecipit inutilia, quia inutilis labor stultus, The Law does not
command useless things, because useless labor is foolish
42. Lex non cogit ad impossibilia, The Law does not compel to impossible ends
43. Judex de pace civium constituitur, A judge is appointed for the peace of the
People.
44. Omnibus infra regnum orantibus legis remedium patet, The remedy of the
Law lies open to all within (or subject to) the realm who ask for it
45. Processus legis est gravis vexatio; execution legis coronat opus, The process
of Law is a heavy hardship; the execution of the Law crowns (rewards) the
work
46. Judici officium suum excedenti non paretur, A judge who exceeds his office
(or jurisdiction) is not obeyed
47. Quae inter alios acta sunt nemini nocere debent, sed prodesse passunt,
Transactions between others can benefit, but should not injure, anyone who is
not party to them
48. Praetextu legis injustia agens duplo puniendus, He who acts under the Cloak
of the Law, who acts unjustly, should bare double punishment
49. Voluntas et propositum distinguunt maleficia, The will and the purpose
distinguish crimes
50. Crimen laesae majestatis omnia alia crimina excedit quoad poenam, The
crime of treason exceeds all other crimes in punishment
 38

PART IX, SESSIONS AND MEETINGS

CHAPTER 72, SESSIONS OF STATE LEGISLATURES
SECTION 780, CALLS FOR SPECIAL SESSIONS

Lex injustia non est lex, An unjust Law is not a Law

United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4

Republican Government; The United States shall guarantee to every State in this
Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against
Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the
Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Amendment 13 to the Constitution of the United States

“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain, any title
of nobility or honor, or shall, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from
any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a
citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust
or profit under them, or either of them.”
 39

E~ Clause®
Christopher E Hallett
16062 SW 34 CT RD, Ocala, Fl, 34473, Ph (352)470-8460 eclausellc@gmail.com

January 31, 2019

NOTICE OF PAYMENT DUE
Subject: Client Injury

Be advised of this office’s intention to align with the Office of Inspector General through the
Department of State in the continued effort to bring the following acts to their reasonable
conclusion as follows: 18 U.S.C. §643, 32 CFR §536.52 Subrogation. Coded as: 18 U.S.C. §4,
18 U.S.C. §3571, 18 U.S.C. §§1621,1622, 18 U.S.C. §2112,

Breach Penalty
1. Violation/s of Oath of Office ($250,000.00) X 4
2. Slavery (Forced Compliance to contracts not held) ($250,000.00) X 2
3. Denied Proper Warrant/s ($250,000.00)
4. Denied Right of Reasonable Defense Argument/s ($250,000.00)
5. Defense Evidence (Records) ($250,000.00)
6. Denied Provisions in the Texas Constitution ($250,000.00)
7. Conspiracy ($10,000.00)
8. Extortion ($5,000.00) X 49
9. Fraud ($10,000.00) X 60
10. Falsification of Documents ($10,000.00) X 8
11. Perjury ($2,000.00) X 30
12. Subordination of Perjury ($2,000.00) X 30
13. Grand Theft ($250,000.00)

Total Damages incurred by my client for Remittance: ($3,805,000.00)

Respectfully Submitted

/s/ Christopher E. Hallett

Christopher E. Hallett, esq (CEO)
E~Clause® LLC, Loss Prevention Practice
(Lic. No. 443079 / Bar No. 03202154)
(Florida Notary No. GG154748)

Aequitas vult spoliatos, vel deceptos, vel lapsos ante omnia restitui and Quod necessitas cogit, defendit
 40

PRACTITIONER AFFIDAVIT
Christopher E. Hallett, DBA E~Clause® LLC (L17000211617)
(Fiduciary Lic. No. 443079 / Florida Notary Commission No. GG154748)

Practitioner Christopher E. Hallett hereby swears under penalty of Perjury,

statements made in this documentation are, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
to be the truth and understand the penalties for knowingly making false statements
could include fines and/or imprisonment. 18 U.S. Code §§ 1621, 1622
"The practice of law can not be licensed by any state / State. Schware v.
Board of Bar Examiners, United States Reports 353 U.S. pgs. 238, 239. In Sims
v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925) "The practice of law is an occupation of common
right." A bar card is not a license, it’s a dues card and/or membership card. A bar
association is what it is, a club, an association is not a license, it has a certificate
through the State, the two are not the same.

E~Clause® LLC, Loss Prevention Practice

(Lic. No. 443079 / Florida Notary No. GG154748)
16062 South West 34 Court Road
Ocala, Florida, 34473
Email: eclausellc@gmail.com

ALL KNOWN INTERESTED PARTIES

ted@tedcruz.org
dallas_office@cornyn.senate.gov
Becky.Walker@senate.texas.gov
writemalkin@gmail.com
CNNTips@cnn.com
brian.burney@dps.texas.gov (Texas Rangers)
James.Sylvester@dfps.state.tx.us (CPS Commissioner)
info@gregabbott.com (Governor Greg Abbott)
info@fclu.org
 Case 1:17-cr-00181-SS Document 4 Filed 05/03/17 Page 1 of 2
41

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FU ED
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 17 y
AUSTIN DIVISION All IQ: 18

STATE OF TEXAS §
bY..
§
V. § A-17-CR-181-SS
§
NATHAN M ALTENHOFEN §

ORDER

On April 19, 2017, the Court received Defendant Nathan M Altenhofen's "Federal

Removal." Altenhofen seeks to remove state criminal case No. C-16-0692-CR from the 244th

Judicial District Court of Ector County, Texas. Defendant Altenhofen does not indicate why he

believes this Court has jurisdiction over his case. Construing Altenhofen's removal liberally, the

Court considers jurisdiction pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1443.

Section 1443, or the "Civil Rights Removal Statute," provides a defendant with a right to

remove a state court action in two specific and limited circumstances:

Any of the following civil actions or criminal prosecutions, commenced in a State

court may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United States for
the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:

(1) Against any person who is denied or carmot enforce in the courts of such
State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of
the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof;

(2) For any act under color of authority derived from any law providing for
equal rights, or for refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be
inconsistent with such law.

28 U.S.C. § 1443. "The defendant bears the burden of establishing [his] right to removal under

§ 1443." Charter School ofPine Grove, Inc. v. St. Helena Parish Sch. Bd., 417 F.3d 444,448 (5th

Cir. 2005).

I
 Case 1:17-cr-00181-SS Document 4 Filed 05/03/17 Page 2 of 2
42

Defendant Altenhofen cannot seek removal under subsection 1443(2), which is "limited to

federal officers and those authorized to act for them or under them." Varney v. State, 446 F.2d 1368,

1369 (5th Cir. 1971) (per curiam) (citing City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.s. 808, 815 (1966)).

Thus, the Court focuses only on whether Defendant can properly remove his state criminal action

under subsection 1443(1).

To remove a case under section 1443(1), the defendant must show both (1) the right allegedly

denied him arises under a federal law "providing for specific rights stated in terms of racial

equality;" and (2) he cannot enforce the specified federal right in state court. Johnson v. Mississippi,

421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975) (quoting Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780 (1966)).

Defendant Altenhofen's allegations are insufficient to establish jurisdiction under

section 1443(1). Accordingly, the court summarily remands this action to the 244th Judicial District

Court of Ector County, Texas.

It is therefore ORDERED that this case is remanded to the 244th Judicial District Court of

Ector County, Texas, and this case is closed.

Signed this day of May 2017.

SA1W1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2
 43

Texas Mandatory Reporting Law

Texas law requires anyone with knowledge of suspected child abuse or neglect to report it to the
appropriate authorities. This mandatory reporting applies to all individuals and is not limited to teachers or
health care professionals. The law even extends to individuals whose personal communications may be
otherwise privileged, such as attorneys, clergy members, and health care professionals. Therefore, all
Baylor University employees should be familiar with Texas law pertaining to reporting suspected child
abuse or neglect.

Section 261.101 of the Texas Family Code mandates that anyone who suspects child abuse or neglect
must report it immediately. The report may be made to (1) any local or state law enforcement agency; or
(2) the Department of Family and Protective Services.

All persons are required to make the report immediately, and individuals who are licensed or certified by
the state or who work for an agency or facility licensed or certified by the state and have contact with
children as a result of their normal duties, such as teachers, nurses, doctors, and day-care employees,
must report the abuse or neglect within 48 hours.

Texas law broadly defines "abuse" and "neglect" so that every action in which a child's physical or mental
health or welfare has been or may be adversely affected is potentially covered. The statute explicitly
excludes an accident or reasonable discipline by a parent or guardian that does not expose the child to a
substantial risk of harm. However, if there is a question whether conduct constitutes "abuse" or "neglect"
always err on the side of the child's safety and report the incident.

A person acting in good faith who reports or assists in the investigation of a report of child abuse or
neglect is immune from civil or criminal liability. Failure to report suspected child abuse or neglect is a
Class A Misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment of up to one year and/or a fine of up to $4,000.
Merely reporting the incident to your supervisor or manager is insufficient.
44
45
46
47
 48

KEN PAXTON
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

February 22, 2019

The Honorable James White Opinion No. KP-0241

· Chair, Committee on Corrections
Texas House of Representatives Re: Standards courts apply when balancing the
Post Office Box 2910 rights of the State against the fundamental rights
Austin, Texas 78768-2910 of parents to raise their children free from
government intrusion (RQ-0258-KP)

Dear Representative White:

You seek an opinion regarding the "elements, factors, or standards" courts consider or
apply "when balancing the rights of the state against the fundamental rights of parents to raise their
child free from government intrusion." 1 To address the standards courts apply in balancing those
rights, it is first necessary to understand the basis for fundamental parental rights and the scope of
those rights.

I. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects fundamental

parental rights.

Courts have long held that "the natural right existing between parents and their children is
of constitutional dimensions." In re Pensom, 126 S.W.3d 251, 254 (Tex. App.-San Antonio
2003, no pet.); Wiley v. Sprat/an, 543 S.W.2d 349, 352 (Tex. 1976). As the U.S. Supreme Court
recognized almost a century ag_o, "[t]he child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture
him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and pr~pare him
for additional obligations." Pierce v. Soc '.Y o_fSisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 ,(1925). Consistent with
this recognition, the Court has held that the interest parents possess with regard to their children is
a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
·Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (200'0).

The Due Process Clause provides that no State shall "deprive any person oflife, libe1iy, or
property, without due process oflaw." U.S. CONST. amend. XIV,§ 1. In addition to guaranteeing
fair process, the Court has held that this Clause includes a substantive component that forbids the
government from infringing upon "certain 'fundamental' liberty interests at all, no matter what
process is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state
interest." Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301-02 (1993). The Court has long held that among the
fundamental rights protected by the Due Process Clause are certain fundamental parental rights.

1
· Letter from Honorable James White, Chair, House Comm. on Corrections, to Honorable Ken Paxton, Tex.
Att'y Gen. at 1 (Nov. 27, 2018) ("Request Letter"), https://www2.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinion/requests-for-
opinions-rqs.
 49
The Honorable James White - Page 2 (KP-0241)

Troxel, 530 U.S. at 65; Pierce, 268 U.S. at 534-35; Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923)
("liberty" includes the right of the individual to "establish a home and bring up children"). Over
time, the Court has identified several contexts in which these fundamental parental rights apply.

a. Due Process protects the right of parents to make decisions regarding the
care, custody, and control of their children.

The Due Process Clause "protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions
concerning the care, custody, and control of their children." Troxel, 530 U.S. at 66. In Troxel, the
Court held unconstitutional a state statute authorizing a court to grant visitation rights to any
person, even over the objection of a fit parent. Id. at 72-73. Noting that the statute placed the
best-interest-of-the-child determination solely in the hands of the judge, the Court concluded Jhat ·
it unconstitutionally infringed on the right of parents to make decisions about the care, custody,
and control of their children. Id.; see also Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944) ("It
is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose
primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor
hinder.").

b. Due Process protects the right of parents to direct the upbringing and
education of their children.

In conjunction with the right to make decisions about the care, custody, and control of their
children, the Due Process Clause guarantees the right o,f "parents and guardians to direct the
upbringing and education of children under their control." Pierce, 268 U.S. at 534-35. In Pierce,
the Court overturned a state law requiring parents to send their children to public school,
emphasizing that the "fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union
repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept
instruction from public teachers only." Id. at 535; see also Meyer, 262 U.S. at 403 (overturning a
state law that prohibited teaching in any language other than English). Lower courts expanding
on this right have explained that Meyer and Pierce "evince the principle that the state cannot
prevent parents from choosing a specific educational program," whether it be religious instruction
at a private school or instruction in a foreign language. Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87, 101 (1st
Cir. 2008); see also Meyer, 262 U.S. at 403; Pierce, 268 U.S. at 534-35.

c. Due Process protects the right of parents to make medical decisions on

behalf of their children.

The Due Process Clause protects the right of parents to make medical treatment decisions
on behalf of their children. See Parham v. JR., 442 U.S. 584, 602 (1979). In Parham, the Court
addressed voluntary commitment procedures for minor children, which allowed a parent to apply
for commitment over the objection of the child. Id. at 587. Rejecting the idea that a formal,
adversarial, pre.admission hearing was necessary to protect the minor children's rights, the Court
emphasized that its ''jurisprudence historically has reflected Western civilization concepts of the
family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children." Id. at 602. "The law's concept
of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience,
and capacity for judgment required for making difficult decisions." Id. Thus, the Court concluded
 50
The Honorable James White - Page 3 (KP-0241)

that parents can and must make judgments about children's need for medical care and treatment.
Id. at 603.

d. Due Process, coupled with the First Amendment, protects the right of
parents to guide the religious training and education of their children.

In conjunction with the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause protects the right of
parents "to guide the religious future and education of their children." Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406
U.S. 205, 232 (1972). Wisconsin v. Yoder addressed a challenge to a compulsory education law,
which required school attendance until age 16, by Amish parents who objected to formal education
beyond the eighth grade. Id. at 207-11. Recognizing that the parents' objections were firmly
grounded in their religious beliefs, and that compulsory high school education could significantly
alter the religious future of their children, the Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments
"prevent the State from compelling respondents to cause their children to att_end formal high school
to age 16." Id at 234. In doing so, the Court emphasized that the "primary role of the parents in
the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American
tradition." Id. at 232.

II. As a general matter, Courts apply strict scrutiny to review state statutes that
infringe upon fundamental parental rights.

You ask generally about the standards courts will apply in adjudicating cases in which
parental rights are at issue, but you do not target a specific context in which those rights are
impacted. See Request Letter at 1. What elements, factors, or standards a court will use in
balancing state interests against the fundamental rights of parents will depend on the context in
which the balancing of interests arises. 2 However, we can provide guidance on the general
standard courts use to balance these interests and then discuss certain contexts where courts may
apply additional standards.

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2000 opinion Troxel v. Granville contains the most recent
expansive discussion of fundamental parental rights. 530 U.S. at 63. In Troxel, the Court held
unconstitutional a Washington statute that allowed any person to petition for visitation rights at
any time if it was in the best interests of the children. Id. Overturning the decision to grant a
grandparent access to a child over the objection of the parent, the Court emphasized that if a parent
"adequately cares for his or her children (i.e., is fit), there will normally be no reason for the State
to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of that parent to
make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that parent's children." Id. at 68-69. But the
plurality opinion in Troxel did not articulate a standard of review for addressing fundamental
parental rights. See id. at 80 (Thomas, J., concurring) (noting that the plurality and other
concurring opinions do not state the appropriate standard of review and suggesting strict scrutiny

2
As your question recognizes, the fundamental rights of parents regarding their children are not absolute.
Request Letter at 1. "Parental rights are fundamental, but neither the Texas Family Code nor the Constitution treats
them as plenary and unchecked." In the Interest of H.S., 550 S.W.3d 151, 163 (Tex. 2018). "[A] state is not without
constitutional control over parental discretion in dealing with children when their physical or mental health is
jeopardized." Parham, 442 U.S. at 603. However, while not absolute, parental rights are still fundamental and
accorded significant protections, as the standards discussed infra reveal.
 51
The Honorable James White - Page 4 (KP-0241)

should apply); In the Interest of HS., 550 S.W.3d at 175 (Blacklock, J., dissenting) ("[The U.S.]
Supreme Court ... has not articulated a standard of review by which to judge the constitutionality
of infringements upon parents' rights.").

Nevertheless, both federal and state courts generally apply strict scrutiny if a state statute
infringes upon a fundamental liberty right protected under the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Reno, 507 U.S. at 302 (explaining that the Due Process Clause
"forbids the government to infringe certain 'fundamental' liberty interests at all, no matter what
process is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state
interest"); Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367,370 (Tex. 1976) (recognizing that because the case
involved the right of the parent to surround the child with proper influences, the case was "strictly
scrutinized"). "Strict scrutiny" requires the "Government to prove that the restriction furthers a
compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest." Reed v. Town ofGilbert, 135
S. Ct. 2218, 2231 (2015); see also Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997)
(recognizing that the Due Process Clause forbids the government from infringing upon a
fundamental liberty interest "unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling
state interest").

Consistent with this applicable standard of review, Texas courts and this office recognize
that "state statutes that infringe upon a parent's right to control the care and custody of his or her
children are subject to strict scrutiny." Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0260 (2004) at 5; see also
In re Pensom, 126 S.W.3d 251, 254 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.). In re Pensom
addressed,the constitutionality of Texas's grandparent visitation statute in light of Troxel. 126
S.W.3d at 253-54. Recognizing that the statute implicated the fundamental liberty interest of
parents in the care, custody, and control of their children, the court underscored the appropriate
standard of review: "Because a fundamental right is implicated here, we apply strict scrutiny and
will uphold the statute if it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest." Id. at
254.

III. Certain contexts regarding child custody determinations may warrant the
application of additional standards.

While strict scrutiny will apply in any instance when a state statute infringes upon a
fundamental parental right, in the context of making custody adjustments or determinations, courts
have adopted additional standards that they utilize when applicable.

a. When a court resolves disputes concerning conservatorship and possession

of a child, the court bases those decisions on the best interest of the child.

While parents are presumed to act in the best interest of their children, in situations
involving divorce parents may have differing opinions regarding what is best for the children. In
addressing child custody disputes between parents or in instances of abuse and neglect of a child,
the Legislature has established the standard by which courts must resolve those disputes: "The best
interest of the child shall always be the primary consideration of the court in determining the issues
of conservatorship and possession of and access to the child." TEX. FAM. CODE§ 153.002. The
 52
The Honorable James White - Page 5 (KP-0241)

Texas Supreme Court provided a non-exhaustive list of factors to consider in ascertaining the best
interest of the child, including:

(A) the desires of the child;

(B) the emotional and physical needs of the child now and in the future;
(C) the emotional and physical danger to the child now and in the future;
(D) the parental abilities of the individuals seeking custody;
(E) the programs available to assist these individuals to promote the best interest
of the child;
(F) the plans for the child by these individuals or by the agency seeking custody;
(G) the stability of the home or proposed placement;
(H) the acts or omissions of the parent which may indicate that the existing parent-
child relationship is not a proper one; and
(I) any excuse for the acts or omissions of the parent.

Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 372 (footnotes omitted); see also Reno, 507 U.S. at 303-04 ('"The best
interests of the child' ... is a proper and feasible-criterion for making the decision as to which of
two parents will be accorded custody.").

b. Before permanently severing parental rights, the State must provide clear
and convincing evidence thatthe termination is warranted.

Both federal and Texas courts have held that the Due Process Clause requires a heightened
evidentiary standard before permanently terminating parental rights. "Before a State may sever
completely and irrevocably the rights of parents in their natural child, due process requires that the
State support its allegations [that support termination] by at least clear and convincing evidence."
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 747-48 (1982); see also In Interest ofG.M, 596 S.W.2d 846,
84 7 (Tex. 1980) (requiring clear and convincing evidence standard of proof "in all proceedings for
involuntary termination of the parent-child relationship"). The Legislature defines "clear and
convincing evidence" as "the measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier
of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established." TEX.
FAM. CODE § 101.007. Consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court case law, the Legislature
incorporated the clear and convincing evidence standard into the Family Code procedures
addressing termination of the parent-child relationship. See, e.g., id. §§ 161.00l(b), .003(a)(2),
.206(a)-(a-1 ).

c. Courts presume that fit parents act in the best interests of their children.

In evaluating parent-child relationships before making decisions about access to the child,
courts presume "that fit parents act in the best interests of their children" and refrain from imposing
their own judgments in lieu of a fit parent's decision regarding what is in the best interest of the
child. Troxel, 530 U.S. at 68. "The law's concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents
possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making
life's difficult decisions." Parham, 442 U.S. at 602. "More important, historically it has
recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children."
Id. Due to this presumption, the State may not "infringe on the fundamental rights of parents to
 53
The Honorable James White - Page 6 (KP-0241)

make child rearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a 'better decision' could be
made." In re Derzapf, 219 S.W.3d 327,333 (Tex. 2007) (quoting Troxel, 530 U.S. at 72-73). So
long as a parent is fit, "there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private
realm of the family to further question the ability of that parent to make the best decisions
concerning the rearing of that parent's children." Troxel, 530 U.S. at 68-69; see also In re Scheller,
325 S.W.3d 640,642 (Tex. 2010).

Parental rights issues arise in many different contexts, and diverse scenarios regularly occur
that require courts to evaluate those rights and balance them against the interests of the State in
new settings. While we do not attempt to anticipate every context a court will consider, or provide
an exhaustive list of the elements, factors, or standards that courts will apply in all settings, the
standards and presumptions discussed herein reveal how courts give fundamental parental rights
expansive protection under the Due Process Clause ..
 54
The Honorable James White - Page 7 (KP-0241)

SUMMARY

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

protects certain fundamental parental rights, including the right of
parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control
of their children, to direct the upbringing and education of their
children, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of their
children, and, in conjunction with the First Amendment, to guide the
religious future and education of their children.

Courts review governmental infringements on fundamental

rights protected by the Due Process Clause under strict scrutiny,
requiring that the statute serve a compelling state interest and be
narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

In addressing child custody disputes between parents or in

instances of abuse and neglect,.. of a child, the Legislature has
established the standard by which courts must resolve those
disputes. Pursuant to section 153.002 of the Family Code, the best
interest of the child shall always be the primary consideration of the
court in determining the issues of conservatorship and possession of
and access to the child.

A court may not permanently and irrevocably terminate

parental rights absent clear and convincing evidence of the
allegations supporting the termination.

In evaluating parent-child relationships before making

decisions about access to the child, courts presume that fit parents
act in the best interests of their children and refrain from imposing
their own judgments in lieu of a fit parent's decision regarding what
is in the best interest of the child.

Very truly yours,

KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Texas
 55
The Honorable James White - Page 8 (KP-0241)

JEFFREY C. MATEER
First Assistant Attorney General

BRANTLEY STARR
Deputy First Assistant Attorney General

RYAN L. BANGERT
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel

VIRGINIA K. HOELSCHER
Chair, Opinion Committee