Drain the Florida Title IV-D Swamp
SARASOTA – Plaintiff finds the officers of the court are timid to challenge these Florida swamp-rats and gators:
Federal Question, Diversity Jurisdiction and Subject Matter Jurisdiction applies in the instant case. Plaintiff relies on the 28 U.S.C. §1738A Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act establishing Diversity Jurisdiction, since Respondent Lotsey kidnapped child from Home-state California. Jurisdiction is also established where Plaintiff is entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983 under Title IV-D in Wehunt v. Ledbetter, 875 F. 2d 1558 – Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit 1989, Stigma-plus damages are “more than reputation alone” but include employment in Rehberg v. Paulk, 611 F. 3d 828 – Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit 2010, Diversity Jurisdiction established in DiRuggiero v. Rodgers, 743 F. 2d 1009 – Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 1984, Immunity does not apply in Jackson v. Rapps, 746 F. Supp. 934 – Dist. Court, WD Missouri 1990. The Domestic Relations Exception does not apply since Plaintiff does not request changes in Parenting Time, or ongoing child support, but procedural failures at the Federal. Plaintiff submits this Motion for Rehearing under FRCP 60, that the Respondents have engaged in Fraud[ulent] UCCJEA Affidavit and therefore a Void Judgment. All these factors working together create the scenario establishing Federal Question and Diversity Jurisdiction.
- Whether or not Debtor is entitled to Federal Question jurisdiction not limited to 28 U.S.C. §1331, 28 U.S.C. §1738A the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, the FRCP 60(b) Fraud and the Florida CR 1.540.
- Whether or not Diversity Jurisdiction applies in the instant case where Interstate Parental Kidnapping has occurred not limited to 28 U.S.C. §1738A and the alleged amount of the creditor exceeds $75,000.
D. Whether or not Social Security exemptions not limited to 42 U.S.C. §407 hold Supremacy in the context of Florida’s legislative Opt-out of Federal Exceptions as applied to Alleged Creditor Dept. of Revenue DOR, for Alleged Domestic Support Obligations garnishment of Debtor’s [necessary income to preserve homestead] Social Security Income as applied to the Debtor’s case, In re Crandall, 200 BR 243 – Bankr. Court, MD Florida 1995.
E. Whether or not Directors and Officers of the Court or the DOR are liable for damages under Title IV-D and 42 U.S.C. §1983, See Wehunt v. LedBetter and Jackson v. Rapps, 746 F. Supp. 934 – Dist. Court, WD Missouri 1990.
- The facts of this case establish Federal Question and Diversity Jurisdiction based on [not limited to] 1) a Prima Facie case of violations of Interstate Parental Kidnapping [PKPA] 28 U.S.C. §1738A, where in the instant case amount in question exceeds $75,000 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332.
- Debtor does not ask the Federal court[s] to issue divorce, alimony or child custody decree; rather, challenges [improper, alleged] child support arrears judgment of $122,000 , not a modification of current support obligations since the child has aged out of the system as of his birthdate 1-17-2017; therefore, the Domestic Relations Exception does not apply in the instant case where violations of the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act PKPA 28 U.S.C. 1738A, trigger Diversity Jurisdiction, DiRuggiero v. Rodgers, 743 F. 2d 1009 – Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 1984.
- Debtor will show how Respondents concede they knew of the requirement to downward modify Debtors child support pursuant to 45 C.F.R. §302.56, F.S. §61.13, §409.2563 and §409.2564 by reason of the[ir] Child Support Audits in 2006 and 2013 stating a “downward modification is warranted”. 
Debtor will show how the alleged Creditor concession to Dereliction of Duty trigger entitles relief under Title IV-D, 42 U.S.C. §1983, not limited to the null and void mootness of their alleged judgment of $122,000, Jackson v. Rapps, 746 F. Supp. 934 – Dist. Court, WD Missouri 1990.
- Debtor will show how Respondent Lynn Lotsey engaged in Fraud pursuant to FRCP 60(b) by claiming “no other litigation was pending” in her [Florida case #2000-DR-11981-CA] UCCJEA affidavit, triggering jurisdictional basis for Debtor relief not limited to FRCP 60(b) Fraud and Florida RCP 1.540, Jackson v. Rapps, 746 F. Supp. 934 – Dist. Court, WD Missouri 1990.
Debtor will further establish Federal Question and Diversity Jurisdiction showing how Lotsey violated not limited to 28 U.S.C. §1738A, having been served with the California Summons four months before signing the Affidavit; ie California is established as having “Home-state” Jurisdiction pursuant to the UCCJEA as well as public record. It follows that her attorney may have committed Fraud Upon the Court FRCP 60(b).
The Respondents and [state] Trial court [is] are also Derelict of Duty, without jurisdiction [fails as a “competent jurisdiction”], should have declined Florida jurisdiction, judgments are fraudulent and null and void, Husky Intern. Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, 136 S. Ct. 1581 – Supreme Court 2016, Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortg. Corp., 137 S. Ct. 553 – Supreme Court 2017.
- Debtor has need for Declaratory Judgment relief, McDougald v. Jenson, 786 F. 2d 1465 – Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit 1986.
- Child was born in San Francisco, CA 1-17-1999 where Debtor and Respondent Lynn Lotsey resided and were employed in California.
- Lotsey [with accomplice Judith Childs – Lotsey’s mother] refused to return to California with the child from an alleged vacation to Florida in Fall of 1999; also refused to disclose location of her and the child’s location.
- Debtor will show Private Investigator located Lotsey, Judith Child’s and the child in South Carolina in February 2000. Debtor will show limited communication by email. Lotsey refusing Debtor’s requests to return the child, even though Debtor’s medical insurance coverage included California exclusively, not elsewhere. Lotsey refused to return even though in a series of email the child was reported to have a 106 degree fever; eg, the child nearly died due to child neglect and concealment.
- Debtor will show his filed Home-state San Mateo, Ca case #F057928 Aug, 1999. Due to Lotsey’s clandestine modus operandi, she was not located and served the California Summons until August, 2000. Debtor will limited surveillance shows the child was not with Lotsey for the entire 6 months preceeding the Florida hearing to meet UCCJEA residency requirements.
- Debtor will show skip traces showing Lotsey changed Drivers license from California to Keystone Heights , Fl in 2-2000. Private Investigator shows Lotsey never lived in the Keystone Heights, FL address. Lotsey resumed child concealment with Debtor’s child’s location unknown and unverified until August, 2000 when service of pleadings occurred in Sarasota, FL.
- Debtor will show Four months after service of the California Summons, Lotsey filed a fraudulent UCCJEA Affidavit saying “no other litigation is pending”; however, the Affidavit acknowledges service of pleadings. Her attorney Stanley Krawetz obviously knew of the California home-state UCCJEA jurisdiction.
- Debtor will show how Florida [allegedly, improperly] took jurisdiction in December, 2000 case number 2000-DR-0011981-CA.
- Debtor will show how Lotsey continued child concealment for the next 4 ½ years, randomly vetoing rare Parent – child visits, for no reason. Debtor’s parenting time total came to approximately 10 hours over those 4 ½ years. Lotsey’s sociopathic modus operandi inflicted tort to child and [dad] the Debtor, in violation of [mediated] Final Order of Paternity May, 2002, until the unbearable nature of the tort compelled Debtor to relocate to Florida, under the advisement of expert Dr. Alex Gimon Ph.d, Largo, Fl.
- Debtor will show how required evidentiary hearing time to determine specific Parenting time is required [but was subverted] by respondents, nor was the required court order as a prerequisite to [file in the courts record] calculate child support amounts in 45 C.F.R. §302.56, F.S. §61.13, §409.2563, §409.2564. Specific Parenting time pursuant to F.S. §61.13 was never assigned in the entire 18 year history of the case, despite repeated, exhaustive [tortuous] attempts by Debtor, with and without an attorney. Consequently, the lack of Court Ordered Specific Parenting time makes child support calculation [mathematically and legally] impossible, as required by Federal and State statute.
- Further, Debtor will show F.S. §61.13, §409.2563 and §409.2564 are not compliant with 45 C.F.R. §302.56. Supremacy declares the state statues null and void, Jackson v. Rapps, 746 F. Supp. 934 – Dist. Court, WD Missouri 1990.
- Debtor will show how Respondents blocked Debtor’s every attempt [due process of rebuttable presumption and attempts to get hearing time and hence; how court ordered specific parenting time was never assigned] to get a court order for specific parenting time not limited to F.S. §61.13. Court ordered parenting time was never rendered in the entire history of the case. Any proper calculation of child support based on required parenting time not limited to F.S. §61.13 is [mathematically and legally] impossible. Debtor will show how the lack of court ordered parenting time renders the alleged $122,000 judgment null and void, Jackson v. Rapps, 746 F. Supp. 934 – Dist. Court, WD Missouri 1990.
- Debtor will show how Respondents rather than grant any proper evidentiary hearing [to determine required specific hearing time required for proper child support}, Respondents instead defamed [and prejudiced] Debtor in public record as a 1) “sexual predator” and a 2)“Vexatious Litigant”, wholly untrue, neither is based on fact and law for both counts violating not limited to F.S. 68.093, Rushing v. GW. Debtor will show how Respondents erected financial barriers of filing fees and attorney fees producing impenetrable barriers to access to the court, contrary to Art XII §21 through defamatory Fraud upon the Court. The Defamatory legal debacle was entered by [“retired”] Judge Nancy Donellan Dec. 31, 2006 and subsequently reinforced by the respondents. This so called “Vexatious Litigant” order reduced Debtor’s [legal] status to Jim Crow or Dred v. Scott, destroying employment, family, liberty and access to the court [due process].
- Debtor will show how Respondents concede in quasi, non-compliant child support audits as required in 45 C.F.R. 302.56, F.S. §61.13, §409.2563 and §409.2564 were [not filed as required] but mailed to Debtor in August, 2006 and May, 2013, that “downward modification is warranted.” The results of the audits, nor required supporting documents were not filed as required. Respondents subsequently mislead the courts [through fraud upon the court] claiming that the supporting documentation for the required audits is “confidential: however, the filing requirement in those statutes expose the Respondents’ fraud upon the court. EG, the Respondents could not have filed the Court Ordered Parenting Time Order [as required in statutes id] because no Court Ordered Parenting time has ever existed.
- Neither the audits, nor supporting documents were filed as required in 45 C.F.R. §302.54, F.S.§61.13, §409.2563, §409.2564. Subsequent [quashed] discovery Subpoenas to acquire this required [by law] discovery have triggered Debtor’s Petition for Certiorari 2DCA18-0512.
- Judge Debra Johnes-Riva [back-door, void of fact, law or due process] terminated Debtor’s parental rights and parenting time without remedy in 2012, without discovery or evidence in a Status conference which disallows discovery or evidence. This violation of Debtor’s Art XII §21, 1st, 5th and 14th Amendment not limited to Troxel v. Granville, 530 US 57 – Supreme Court 2000 and Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) trigger a 3rd change of circumstance requiring a downward modification; yet, Respondents never modified. Judge Riva’s alleged Order was based on uncorroborated, dated 12 year-old hearsay – defamatory slander without opportunity for required rebuttable presumption.
Jurisdiction Related Questions
- The instant [Federal] court has [limited] Subject Matter Jurisdiction established by Diversity Jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1738A the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act PKPA,  McDougald v. Jenson, 786 F. 2d 1465 – Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit 1986. The instant court’s [limited] Subject Matter Jurisdiction provides the authority to the instant court to determine:
1) Diversity Jurisdiction gives this Federal Court Authority to decide which of two States applies Pieri v. Superior Court, 1 Cal. App. 4th 114 – Cal: Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate, MAC v. MDH, 88 So. 3d 1050 – Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 2nd Dist. 2012. Amount in question exceeds $75,000 and
3) the propriety of the alleged claim based on the alleged judgment of $122,000 based on Federal and State requirements in 45 C.F.R. §302.56, F.S. §61.13, §409.2563, §409.2564 and not limited to 42 U.S.C. §407, Jackson v. Rapps, 746 F. Supp. 934 – Dist. Court, WD Missouri 1990 and
4). Whether the alleged creditor [Florida Dept. of Revenue] has standing to enforce the alleged judgment, Department of Revenue v. McLeod, 96 So. 3d 443 – Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 1st Dist. 2012, Valdes v. Valdes, Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 2nd Dist. 2015 and
5) Whether the alleged claim for $122,000 Child Support Arrears is void ab-initio, based on fraud, Jackson v. Rapps, 746 F. Supp. 934 – Dist. Court, WD Missouri 1990 and Husky Intern. Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, 136 S. Ct. 1581 – Supreme Court 2016 and
6) Whether the Domestic Relations Exception applies where the [instant] court has Diversity jurisdiction; hence, the instant court has Federal Question, Diversity and [limited] Subject Matter Jurisdiction, McDougald v. Jenson, 786 F. 2d 1465 – Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit 1986.
- Debtor will show how Social Security exemptions 42 U.S.C §407, §220.20, take Supremacy over the Domestic Support exception where Florida legislation has exercised the “opt-out” provision provided for at the Federal level, In re Crandall, 200 BR 243 – Bankr. Court, MD Florida 1995
- Debtor will show how Respondents, Florida DOR and officers of the court are liable for damages, nor are entitled to immunity, Jackson v. Rapps, 746 F. Supp. 934 – Dist. Court, WD Missouri 1990.
The Florida Twelfth Circuit “Family Court”, the Florida Dept. of Revenue is ripe for investigation, specifically case 2000-DR-0011981-CA, FLMB 8:17-BK-08529-CPM and California case #F057928. Accountability for malfeasance on the part of the Florida DOR / CSE and officers of the court is required to maintain the rule of law for [the scope of] millions of We The People.
This case is typical of thousands of destroyed families, businesses, careers and children where Stigma-plus occurs ‘under the color of [family court] law, driven by inordinate greed to fill treasuries with Title IV-D tax dollars. Many veterans of [the military and the family courts in general] of good standing in the society, claim this malfeasant system of “war on families” claim the “Family Court system” and DCF engages in Child trafficking under the color of law, mostly driven by Title IV-D taxpayer dollars. Parental Alienation driven by sociopathic protagonists is at epidemic proportions, resulting in a Tsunami of anti-social behavior by those who are raised without a moral compass. Dr. Mario Jimenez of Miami and others reveal statistics showing a direct connection between Family Court Corruption -> PTSD -> Veteran Suicide -> legal abuse as described in DSM V.
Please investigate and drain the Florida Family Court [starting with the Twelfth Circuit], DOR / CSE and DCF swamp. Save our families, family names, our children’s inheritance and our homesteads.
 The 12 Ckt of Sarasota claims to have issued the child custody and support order; however, fails to meet constitutional, Federal and state muster, not limited to Fraud; therefore, is null and void FRCP 60(b), Fl. Civil Rule 1.540..
-  Respondents knowingly failed to follow required procedures in 45 C.F.R. §302.56, F.S. 409.2563 and §409.2564; hence, due process violations, Jackson v. Rapps, 746 F. Supp. 934 – Dist. Court, WD Missouri 1990.
-  Keystone Heights, FL was Lotsey’s Father’s address.
 F.S. §61.13, §409.2563 and §409.2564 fail to include criminal history named in 45 C.F.R. §302.56. Privacy and Stigma-plus violations retroactively applied across state borders result in Debtor Property damages “more than reputation alone”, but employment, liberty and property , see Paul v. Davis, 424 US 693 – Supreme Court 1976, Rehberg v. Paulk, 611 F. 3d 828 – Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit 2010.
 “The Third Circuit and the Fifth Circuit have held that the federal district 1475*1475 courts possess subject matter jurisdiction over complaints seeking to enforce compliance with the dictates of section 1738A. See Heartfield v. Heartfield, 749 F.2d 1138 (5th Cir.1985); Flood v. Braaten, 727 F.2d 303 (3d Cir.1984)…”
 Debtor does not seek modification of [state related] child custody or ongoing support; rather, the propriety of the $122,000 judgment and garnishment of Social Security Income, In re Crandall , where Debtor’s SSI is required [not expendable] to meet his mortgage homestead payment, under foreclosure.
 Jackson v. Rapps, 746 F. Supp. 934 – Dist. Court, WD Missouri 1990
 Read “The Legal Abuse Syndrome” by Dr. Karen Huffer