1 Your name

2 Your address
[City, ST ZIP Code]
3

5 [COURT NAME]
6

7
[PLAINTIFF'S NAME], Case No.: [Number]
8
Plaintiff,
9
NOTICE OF MOTION
10 vs.
COURT IS SANCTIONED AND
11 LIMITED BY A WRITTEN
[DEFENDANT'S NAME],
CONSTITUTION AND SUPREME
12
Defendant COURT ADJUDICATED FACT
13 TROXEL V GRANVILLE 530 US 57
(2000) AND THEREBY THIS
14
COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE
15 AUTHORITY TO DENY A
16
FATHER OF HIS FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHT TO CARE, CUSTODY AND
17 CONTROL OF HIS OFFSPRING
18 AND MUST ENSURE 50/50
CUSTODY RIGHTS TO THE
19
DEFENDANT/FATHER
20

21

22 NOTICE OF MOTION
23

24
1
25
NOTICE OF MOTION COURT IS SANCTIONED AND LIMITED BY A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION
AND SUPREME COURT ADJUDICATED FACT TROXEL V GRANVILLE 530 US 57 (2000) AND
26
THEREBY THIS COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DENY A FATHER OF HIS
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO CARE, CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF HIS OFFSPRING AND MUST
ENSURE 50/50 CUSTODY RIGHTS TO THE DEFENDANT/FATHER -
 1 COURT IS SANCTIONED AND LIMITED BY A WRITTEN
2
CONSTITUTION AND SUPREME COURT ADJUDICATED FACT
3

4 TROXEL V GRANVILLE 530 US 57 (2000) AND THEREBY THIS COURT

5
DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DENY A FATHER OF HIS
6

7
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO CARE, CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF HIS

8 OFFSPRING AND MUST ENSURE 50/50 CUSTODY RIGHTS TO THE

9
DEFENDANT/FATHER
10

11

12

13 Comes now, the defendant/Father [Type in your name and address

14
and then delete brackets] is a living Man with blood flowing through his body
15

16 presenting a written motion notifying the state court that it is sanctioned and

17
limited by a written state constitution.
18

19
Furthermore, this state court is sanctioned and limited by the
20

21
adjudicated fact Troxel v. Granville, 530 US 57 - Supreme Court 20001 and

22 1

23
"[T] he interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children—is perhaps the
24 oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by [the Supreme Court.]" Keates v. Koile, 883 F.3d 1228,
1235-36 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000) (plurality opinion)).
2
25
NOTICE OF MOTION COURT IS SANCTIONED AND LIMITED BY A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION
AND SUPREME COURT ADJUDICATED FACT TROXEL V GRANVILLE 530 US 57 (2000) AND
26
THEREBY THIS COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DENY A FATHER OF HIS
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO CARE, CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF HIS OFFSPRING AND MUST
ENSURE 50/50 CUSTODY RIGHTS TO THE DEFENDANT/FATHER -
 1 thereby this state court is sanctioned from entering an order that causes
2
interference with parents' fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and
3

4 management of their children. challenging the court and thereby the state court is
5
prohibited under due process of law to rely upon any presumptions.
6

7
It is a fact the defendant/Father [Type in your name and address and
8

9 then delete brackets] is a living Man with blood flowing through his body and is a
10
citizen of the state,2 that in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political
11
community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, and
12

13 organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution,

14
and established by the consent of the governed. and is filing a Motion to Challenge
15

16 the jurisdiction of the Court to deny the defendant/father the care, custody, and

17
control of his offspring.
18

19
STATEMENT OF FACTS
20

21 2

22
“In the Constitution the term state most frequently expresses the combined idea just noticed, of
23 people, territory, and government. A state, in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free
citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, and organized under a government sanctioned and limited
24 by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed.” Texas v. White, 74 US 700 - Supreme
Court 1869
3
25
NOTICE OF MOTION COURT IS SANCTIONED AND LIMITED BY A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION
AND SUPREME COURT ADJUDICATED FACT TROXEL V GRANVILLE 530 US 57 (2000) AND
26
THEREBY THIS COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DENY A FATHER OF HIS
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO CARE, CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF HIS OFFSPRING AND MUST
ENSURE 50/50 CUSTODY RIGHTS TO THE DEFENDANT/FATHER -
 1

2
1. The offspring are equally the property of the Defendant/Father and the
3

4 natural mother and therefore the father must have 50/50 custody and
5
property rights cannot be deprived unless by due process.
6

7
2. It may not sound natural to refer to offspring as property, but it is a fact the

8 offspring are the property of the father and the mother and thereby they must
9
share 50/50 custody and this right to property cannot be deprived unless by
10

11 due process of law requiring a judgment by peers.

12
3. The defendant is a man and citizen of this state and hereby this court must
13
acknowledge that the defendant/father is not a “person”3 defined under 42
14

15 U.S. Code § 653 Federal Parent Locator Service definition of “person4”

16
means an individual, a trust or estate, a partnership, or a corporation.
17

18

19

20
3

21
“Person” Defined by 42 USC Section 1301(a)(3) The term “person” means an individual, a
22 trust or estate, a partnership, or a corporation.
4

23
“person” means an individual, a trust or estate, a partnership, or a corporation. Defined by 42
24 USC Section 653

4
25
NOTICE OF MOTION COURT IS SANCTIONED AND LIMITED BY A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION
AND SUPREME COURT ADJUDICATED FACT TROXEL V GRANVILLE 530 US 57 (2000) AND
26
THEREBY THIS COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DENY A FATHER OF HIS
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO CARE, CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF HIS OFFSPRING AND MUST
ENSURE 50/50 CUSTODY RIGHTS TO THE DEFENDANT/FATHER -
 1 4. The undersigned Defendant/Father’s unalienable rights are secured by a
2
written constitution [Type in your state constitution] that requires the court
3

4 to inform the Defendant/Father of his rights secured by state constitution and

5
explain the legal consequences of the Defendant/Father waiving his
6

7
constitutional rights.

9 5. The Defendant/Father requires the court to provide proof of a document

10
proving the undersigned Defendant/Father knowingly expressed his consent
11
to waive rights secured by state constitution and federal constitution
12

13 allowing the court to assign custody rights and visitation rights without due
14
process in accordance with state constitution and 5th and 14th amendments,
15

16 because this is the only lawful way the court can assign custody and

17
visitation rights against the Defendant/Father’s wishes.
18

19
6. It is the duty of the court to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the
20

21
citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon and must provide

22 equal protection of law and ensure the Defendant/Father’s due process rights
23
against the deprivation of life, liberty, and property is maintained.
24
5
25
NOTICE OF MOTION COURT IS SANCTIONED AND LIMITED BY A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION
AND SUPREME COURT ADJUDICATED FACT TROXEL V GRANVILLE 530 US 57 (2000) AND
26
THEREBY THIS COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DENY A FATHER OF HIS
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO CARE, CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF HIS OFFSPRING AND MUST
ENSURE 50/50 CUSTODY RIGHTS TO THE DEFENDANT/FATHER -
 1 7. It is a fact persons not judges (Judge Surrogates) coram non judice,5 are
2
without judicial authority and therefore cannot yield a judgment causing the
3

4 deprivation of life, liberty, or property.

5

6 RELIEF
7
1. Relief is required by this state court be watchful for the constitutional rights
8

9 of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon6 and therefore
10
must ensure the Movant/Defendant/Father retains his constitutional right to
11
50/50 custody of his offspring.
12

13 2. Relief is required by this state court to prevent any state agency or state
14
court from interfering with the Movant/Defendant/Father’s constitutional
15

16 right to 50/50 custody of his offspring.

17

18

19
5

20
“Traditionally that proposition was embodied in the phrase coram non judice, "before a person
21 not a judge" — meaning, in effect, that the proceeding in question was not a judicial proceeding because lawful
judicial authority was not present, and could therefore not yield a judgment. American courts invalidated, or denied
22 recognition to, judgments that violated this common-law principle long before the Fourteenth Amendment was
adopted” Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin, 495 US 604 - Supreme Court 1990
6
23

24 “It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any
stealthy encroachments thereon” Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28 (1927)
6
25
NOTICE OF MOTION COURT IS SANCTIONED AND LIMITED BY A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION
AND SUPREME COURT ADJUDICATED FACT TROXEL V GRANVILLE 530 US 57 (2000) AND
26
THEREBY THIS COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DENY A FATHER OF HIS
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO CARE, CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF HIS OFFSPRING AND MUST
ENSURE 50/50 CUSTODY RIGHTS TO THE DEFENDANT/FATHER -
 1

3
Dated this [day] of [Month], [year].
4

6 Your Name
7

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24
7
25
NOTICE OF MOTION COURT IS SANCTIONED AND LIMITED BY A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION
AND SUPREME COURT ADJUDICATED FACT TROXEL V GRANVILLE 530 US 57 (2000) AND
26
THEREBY THIS COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DENY A FATHER OF HIS
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO CARE, CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF HIS OFFSPRING AND MUST
ENSURE 50/50 CUSTODY RIGHTS TO THE DEFENDANT/FATHER -