For The District Of Alaska

R. L. N,

aka, s-a-H, 



State of Alaska, et-al:

Cynthia Bradley,

Robert Heun,

Morgan Christen,

Dana Fabe,

Rachel Gernat,

Lynn Chandler,

Sharon Faulkner,

Tammy Sandoval, .

Barb Malchick,

Josh Fannon,




                                                                                 Case Number: 3-8-CV-00226






Note: Most private citizens names have been

redacted to initials for this web version

  1. Comes now the Plaintiff, R L. N, aka s-a-H, who is the father of child female, H, and hereby declare under penalty of perjury, that the following I believe to be true to the best of my knowledge, and therefore state my Complaint to this Court, as follows:


  2. This is an action for tort, damages, injunctive and/or declaratory relief. Jurisdiction over this matter is conferred by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, the 5th, 6th, 9th and 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; I have as a novice pro-se investigated and do not believe the 11th Amendment is a bar to this court's jurisdiction in these alleged matters.

  3. Only OCS, APD, Rachel Gernat and Josh Fannon are being sued in Tort for LIMITED damages. I am NOT out to become wealthy off our daughter's nightmare of the last 5+ years of her hell; just to have the funds to be able to get her the OUTSIDE ALASKA help she needs, according to her last counselor, not here because of grapevine and professional fraternal-loyalty politics. The injunctive and declaratory relief asked for is very narrow and I would guess somewhat minor to medium-affective at maximum.

  4. Most significant to jurisdiction issues from this pro-se's amateur research is my statement that this is NOT a suit asking for ANY relief to change or modify custody, to make any declarations or injunctions affective in the domestic relations family law areas or to force and public official to do ANYTHING at all other than to freely exercise their discretion in ordered areas where they haven't yet done so or to not exercise their discretion in areas where they shouldn't constitutionally. The declaratory and injunctive relief asked for, except for limited AND REASONABLE discovery is intended to relate to issues that are protective of due-process and constitutional rights and prohibitions ONLY; with the exception of some agency-process-procedures discovery which may cross marginal lines beyond my novice legal ability to understand.

  5. I may have researched incorrectly, however I state that I cannot see how my claims and relief prayers to cross any 11th Amendment issues.

  6. To the extent this court is asked to interpret Alaska State Law it would be only for declaratory purposes over constitutional violations, not to enjoin or interfere. It would remain up to State pro-active action or remedial action to address if such constitutional lines this court would find that they have been crossed. In other words my intent here is NOT to harness Federal judicial power to interfere in the State of Alaska's separation of powers rights.

  7. This Court has pendant jurisdiction over state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §


  8. Also, to prevent possible judicial “spin”, I state clearly here, that I R L. N am not, again I am NOT, bringing an action to this court “on behalf” of my daughter since I understand that pro-se's cannot do that, unless the child has her own attorney. I believe I have constitutional interests, and U.S. judicial precedent interests, for instance under Troxel vs. Granville (99-138) 530 U.S. 57 (2000) of my own, as a parent, independent of H's interests, as the father and advocate for our child.


  9. Plaintiff: R L. N, see address above; father of child female H.

  10. Defendants in entity then personal name alphabetical order:

    Anchorage Police Department (hereinafter APD)

    4501 Elmore Rd. Anch. Ak. 99507

  11. Cynthia Bridges (last name in 2004) nka Bradley,

    Child Crimes Detective in her official capacity only, acting outside color of law and outside the scope of her professional discretion and reckless and/or negligent behaviors with discriminatory intent, as more explained in Counts below.

  12. Robert Heun, only as it relates to issues arising out of his supervisory actions as Chief of Police.

  13. And, as yet un-named defendants, J-Does, as come to light thru discovery.

    Alaska Court System,

  14. Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Morgan Christen, 825 W. 4th Ave., Anch. Ak. 99501, only as it pertains to declarations of her violations of her abuse of judicial process and/or due-process and/or constitutional rights and those consequential results arising therefrom.

  15. Chief Justice of The Alaska Supreme Court, Dana Fabe, 303 K. St., Anch. Ak. 99501; only as it pertains to declarations of her violations of her abuse of judicial process and/or due-process and/or constitutional rights and those consequential results arising therefrom.

  16. And, as yet un-named defendants, J-Does, as come to light thru discovery.

    Palmer Alaska State District Attorney's Office (hereinafter PLMR-DA); 11921 Palmer/Wasilla Hwy, Ste. 100, 99645,

  17. Rachel Gernat, in both her individual capacity for consequences arising from her Felony failure to report, and in her official capacity for abuse of process, and other actions outside the color of law and outside her scope of discretion. And, as yet un-named defendants, J-Does, as come to light thru discovery.

    Office of Children's Services, (hereinafter OCS) 323 E. 4th Ave, Anch. Ak. 99501,

  18. Lynn Chandler, case worker, in BOTH her individual and official capacities.

  19. Sharon Faulkner, case worker, in BOTH her individual and official capacities.

  20. Tammy Sandoval, only in her supervisory and official capacity.

  21. And, as yet un-named defendants, J-Does, as come to light thru discovery.

    Office of Public Advocacy, (GAL Division), (hereinafter OPA-GAL) , 900 W. 5th Ave. Ste. 525, Anch. Ak. 99501

  22. Barb Malchick, only in her Supervisory Capacity and ONLY in relation to what MAY or may NOT be appropriate relief that is both declaratory and injunctive. This party pertains ONLY to future injunctive relief, ZERO bad faith, YET, of any kind is even implied.

  23. Josh Fannon, Attorney at Law, 6177 East Mountain Heather D Wasilla, AK 99652 in both his individual capacity for consequences arising from his Felony failure to report, and in his official OPA contractual capacity for abuse of process, and other actions outside the color of law and outside his scope of agency (OPA) discretion.


  24. This complaint is about the mass retaliation and religious discrimination against plaintiff and its consequences to our daughter and many other innocent children by a cover-up so massive and criminal that before a crowded room full of state, national and local medias, on January, 8, 2008, long-standing Alaska Judge Michael Wolverton made a special emphasis comment regarding what is often now known as the most infamous child abuse case in Alaska history; “The Wasilla Child Abuse Case,” of S.O.A. vs. P and S K, 3PA-04-2686CR & 2689CR, which was about their 5 adopted children, and less known about, because it was covered-up, was the 4 other children of the P/N (plaintiff's) family.

  25. Judge Wolverton said: “. . . The children involved in this case were victims, no questions. I think THE GREATER QUESTION THOUGH IS TO DETERMINE EXACTLY WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN VICTIMS OF AND BY WHOM in every instance? . . . I HOPE, BY ANOTHER TRIBUNAL, at a later time.(caps emphasis has been added)"1 .

  26. It is well considered that the snowballing crimes of cover-ups of cover-ups of cover-ups, etc, are almost always worse than the original crime itself. This complaint also relates to 20-40 other parents and/or foster parents of 10-20 other sexually abused children, all directly affected by the consequential events flowing from the, malfeasance and abuses of process described below.

  27. Child, female H, at age ****, was ordered to be in the 20 day Ex-Parte DV Protective Custody of her Father, (a somewhat well known anti-terrorist Muslim since BEFORE 9-11), as a result of two, mother-caused, major police incidents resulting in APD's written intent to charge child's mother for misdemeanor crime. The Alaska Statutory mandated evidentiary hearing to convert this DV into a long-term restraining order, and for a status hearing in their just filed civil divorce were both scheduled to be heard, together, on 12/17/'03.

  28. On the early evening 12/15/'03, pro-se N was hand served an attorney filed Motion to Dismiss and to reverse custody based on what later was confessed, by Ms. Provost herself,  to be a totally false highly inflammatory affidavit implying that Mr. N was some sort of extreme psychologically-abusive terrorist Muslim about to “abduct” the divorcing parties two younger girls to “Burqra-land.” However, after over 20 minutes of an involuntary and opposed ex-parte meeting ONLY with the mother and her counsel, in the judge's private chambers, Judge Morgan Christen, refused Mr. N's requested continuance on the motion to dismiss, refused to hear from any of the over 4 pre-published-witness-list witnesses, but one of his four grown daughters, including two named school officials, refused to allow Mr. N ANY of his 6th Amendment rights to cross-examine and refused to hold the Statutory mandated evidentiary hearing for determining whether to grant the long-term restraining protective custody order, already issued on probable cause. From the less than the 20 minutes of actual hearing time, she then totally reversed this child's PROTECTIVE custody order, in favor of her father; and then dismissing the existing and judicially extended protective order.

  29. Then next, she issued, sua-sponte, 4 new no-contact orders, against Mr. N., one of which prohibited Mr. N from going to his daughter's school; ALL THIS without any motions, without hearing any custody or domestic violence evidence, and without any written or even oral findings of any kind for over two years 2.

  30. But within only days from this constitutional debacle, (why the child protective order for the father was NEEDED), the mother moved all four of the separated parties minor children, from out of the families mortgage free 3 bedroom home to live instead, inside the uninhabitable (per mother's own pleas to the eviction court) “totally destroyed” overcrowded 5 bedroom of house of P & S   K., with their 5 adopted children; this household now totaling nine children and three adults. And within only days to weeks of this move-in female child H (****) was third-party court hearing testified to, to have been anally abused by one of the female teens of the three siblings Judge Wolverton had made special findings that OCS knew full well of their record of being BOTH sexual abuse victims, AND perpetrators; that the K's had requested to not to get children with these problems, but that OCS had “dumped” these kids onto them anyway, and without telling them a thing about these children's nightmares in their previous foster homes, and thus what these innocent unsuspecting parents would be up against.

  31. S K further testified that the only reason they then felt they had to move from this Anchorage home was because this was the fourth child sexual abuse victim from these siblings.

  32. From such shocking hearing testimony, no cross-examination, whatsoever, was even offered by the State's DA, Rachel Gernant.

  33. More importantly, the perpretator named in the 2006 hearing was the exact same name given and agreed with in the January 31, 2004 written report of H's female Pediatrician. She wrote back then, in her exam report notes, she was very concerned about this other teen child, H's housemate, who  “hurts” other children.

  34. To this date, none of the four third-party adult witnesses, or the doctor, anxious to testify regarding their witnessing of this child's sexual-abuse issues; have EVER been contacted, even once, by any investigative body. Such embarrassing and shameful consequences to flow from judicial and law enforcement detective misbehaviors; crimes against children sacrificed to covering-rears and professional loyalty.

  35. So, to aid in the cover-up of these grave consequences from her shameful constitutional debacle, Judge Morgan Christen then altered the dates on a crucial motion I had filed (an can prove with COURT certified documentation) on December 8 and 11 so that it falsely read as if it were filed on December 22; AFTER the 12/17/hearing. She did this so she could then and did issue an order that that motion was moot because it was filed too late.

  36. Thus this 12/17/'03 “hearing” debacle was censored by judicial instructions to the legal tech to remove from the docket record, of the hearings existence. But, oops, “judge” Christen “forgot” to also have removed the entry dated 12/29/'03: “Proposed Interim Order From Hearing of 12/17/'03”. This also dishonestly reads “(no underlying motion)” However, when the judge instructed the 12/15/'03 “Motion to Dismiss” [and for custody] to be also removed from the docket record, and to “re-date” alter the attorney's entry of appearance from its actual date of 12/15/'03 of Jon Buchholdt to 12/16/'03, once again she also forgot to have removed Mr. N's 12/17/'03 reply to the certified hand-served pleading by Mr. Buchholdt to Mr. N's front door, found in the late afternoon of 12/15/'03 (along with the 12/15/'03 dated “Entry of Appearance”, also court-certified copy of).

  37. Perhaps this “judge” did not wish a record of the fact that she only gave this pro-se muslim, Mr. N, a wee more than 36 hours to respond and then refused his continuance requests to respond to such a highly inflammatory and extensively perjured affidavit (again, later admitted to be so by Ms. P herself in writing) .   The docket record, to this day, has this 12/17/2003 hearing removed and censored from public view - - as if it never happened. Normally the first custody hearing/order in ANY divorce with custody issues can be date located by searching through the docket record.

  38. Not counting other malfeasance by this sitting “judge”; more importantly, she then proceeded to further her cover-ups by refusing to meaningfully enforce against the mother's extreme efforts to prevent this child from getting the OCS recommended counseling that it was ONLY the father, Mr. N who was fighting very hard for her to receive (as can be easily seen from the docket record). Then years later, when the child finally had just begun to feel comfortable to begin talking to her new well experienced child sex-abuse counselor, about her horrid life surrounded by the almost daily domestic violence in this now media-infamous household, the court quickly ordered all counseling to cease. Say what? Yep, that's right!!

  39. Then, next, to “further” for the sake of “neat” jurisprudent appearances, her cover-up, Judge Christen ordered two State agencies to investigate what happened to child H. with, what I claim, were “couched” hint language, and to find out whether H suffered abuse or not in the K's household. But this "judge" then did absolutely nothing and even struck Mr. N's objections, when both of these two agency entire “thorough” investigations consisted in making only ONE undocumented “chit-chat” phone call to the K-case prosecutor, DA Rachel Gernat.

  40. Absolutely, unbelievably, unethically, Ms. Gernat proceeded to make judicial-like findings to these two agencies, she knew she had no such right to make, because she was the DA, NOT the judge, that she knew the judge had found almost the opposite of what her opinion and plea to the Judge were, that she knew that HER findings instead of reporting the judges findings, would be used against Mr. N.   This DA's quasi-judicial “findings” upon which the agency based their conclusions was that it was ridiculous that our child, H, was abused or suffered any harm from living inside this home where she was witnessing almost daily domestic violence (according to a media statement offered earlier by Ms. Gernat HERSELF).

  41. To further seal the fate of a solid cover-up this “judge” next, in spite of two highly qualified expert witness trial testimonies, TO THE CONTRARY, that H had an urgent need to the easily available K case information that could resolve many unanswered questions for her therapy, and Master (a type of judge) Andrew Brown's March 2004 plea and findings that this child's sexual issues needed a real investigation, in three different places in his Master's Report, she saw to it that no, none, zero, real, normal investigation would EVER be or     HAS   EVER     been done.

  42. Along side the judicial abuse cover-up was the even more dishonest actions of Palmer DA Rachel Gernat. Knowing the agency detrimental effects that would arise from the massive media coverage and the publics learning of the existence of even more affected children, these other 4 children,  and then also, the thus suppressed existence of the Anchorage home, as the primary residence of the K's,  NOT Wasilla,  Rachel Gernat then, knowing full well she was lying, completely covered up the existence of the Anchorage home and the existence of these other 4 children,  to the media,  by falsely listing all the 104 criminal indictments in her court filed pleadings as having taken place in Wasilla,   NOT Anchorage.    Yet, again to emphasize, she knew full well that the bulk of the abuse events, calendar-wise, had taken place at the 5 ½ year Anchorage address NOT the few month Wasilla address and so another successful abuse of process cover-up and the “K” case came to be widely and falsely associated with, about the five children, NOT the nine children as the number of house residents; the State, successfully having covered-up the unpleasant two truths it did not want to get out, still to this day falsely referred to as the “Wasilla Child Abuse Case.”

  43. The multi-agency complicity in these cover-ups of H's alleged abuse and the cover-ups of these other children's sexual abuse, and the horrid consequences to so many innocent children and their loving caretakers has literally mushroomed into one disastrous consequence after the other from this point.

  44. Yet Rachel Gernant and “judge” Christen's cover-up collusions and retributive actions to anyone who dared to “reveal” did not end here, and have continued up until even just weeks ago. Mrs. S.   L.   was the active and loving “Grandparent” to these unfortunate K children. To aid in a conviction the State also, initially imprisoned both S L and her husband G. on a minor failure to report misdemeanor charge and a few minor degree assault charges; which they agreed to drop if the L's would agreed to help the state to imprison their own children, the K's. All but one of S L's charges were eventually dropped and she was told the last remaining charge would also be dropped - - eventually, when the “system” would finally get around to it. Ms. L like many other's were constantly threatened to keep their mouths shut or ELSE. Ms. L felt concerned about our child H and the fact the court, in the name of “judge” Christen was refusing to allow her treatment to proceed and to generally pretend nothing had really happened at all.

  45. So, in 2007,  Ms. L personally hand-wrote a plea letter she had reason to believe would be PRIVATE, because it was to be filed into a so-called SEALED case, thus just privately informing Judge Christen alone, that our child's best friend and housemate of similar age, KK, had also been sexually abused and named others, ending her letter to Judge Christen with a plea “How many more children will have to suffer so this can continued to be covered up?” Within just days from the filing of this letter, into a so-called sealed case, by a judge who is ehtically prohibited from ALL ex-parte chit-chats with others, she received a phone call, that the last to be dropped charge was now suddenly to be reinstated because she had talked and they would stage a big media event around her trial; which is EXACTLY what happened just weeks ago; but that judge threw out Ms. L's charges even before the trial had finished, is how valid they were in the first place and why they had been planned to have been dropped.

  46. Finally, worse of all, there is growing evidence that clearly implies that Alaska's Child Protective Services intentionally placed these highly disturbed four children with records of being both sexually abused and as multiple perpetrators (as neglected child sex-abuse victims often become) with this unsuspecting dedicated and loving couple, WITHOUT telling them about this history, knowing full well what would happen, in order to intentionally generate a media-frenzy for budgetary and agency discretionary-regulatory power gains. The abuse of process crime of the century? Especially likely, since the record proves, OCS, apparently, “grapevine” recommended to the police and other agencies supervisors to just ignore the multiple citizen pleas for anyone to intervene, somehow, into these poor children's out of control situation as early as over one-year before any of the FIRST arrests. It's a matter of public record, that these children's ongoing and KNOWN-ABOUT child abuse situation was INTENTIONALLY and totally ignored by especially the Anchorage Police Department, and the Alaska Cares child crimes interview unit for almost one-year in spite of known and presented to officials affidavits from professionals AND photographs of the inside of this destroyed home; AND their PRE-EXISTING knowledge of these four children's problems in their previous foster homes. And yet and yet and yet, unbelievably, what one has just read above is just the tip of this criminal abuse of process debacle iceberg.

  47. Counting the mother's families' THREE long-term restraining orders granted against them, plus two 20 day DV's, plus at least 6 other instances by Judge Christen's own pre-written criteria that would qualify under the law as incidents of domestic violence; more than a history of 10 incidents of domestic violence versus ZERO of any kind by Mr. N, and in spite of Alaska's newer 2004 MANDATORY custody criteria that a history of domestic violence incidents, being any more incidents than ONE, means that that parent CANNOT have either even joint or especially sole legal custody of their disputed child; yet to this day with monthly ongoing incidents qualifying as domestic violence, the mother continues in sole legal custody of this child.  What my lord does the system "know" that the father doesn't, that the system is obviously so afraid of giving this child any real opportunity to tell her story; which ois why they "can't" follow the law and risk giving this child to the father, the very and only person whose ever been trying to maintain and get this child the counseling she needs.  How in this world can a child whose witnessed so much domestic violence and been the center of so many police incidents NOT need at least some counseling..

  48. Mr. N is NOT asking for any federal court modification of any custody issue - - PERIOD; or any delving into family law matters of any kind to even the smallest of degrees. This IS about what should be at least a criminal level of abuse of process and obstruction of justice.

    Allegations Against Cynthia Bridges (last name in 2004) nka Bradley:

  1. I make the following allegations of fact against this party, in her official capacity as Child Crimes Detective.

  2. Acting outside the color of law and outside the scope of her professional discretion and/or with reckless and/or negligent behaviors AND with discriminatory intent, she did fail to honestly and objectively report from ALL the child-protection issues raised in her interview of our daughter H. All the children, for instance, reported to have been coached by their mother, the 15 year old, who'd just gotten out of an involuntary mental commitment for suicidal ideation and drug use, was reported to have been living in an apartment all by herself only a couple blocks from Anchorages infamous “she-meat” meet bar, Chilkoot Charlies.

  3. When one of the other children related this highly irresponsible act of parental supervision, specifically against child's strict 24/7 close supervision release conditions from Providence Hospital's teen mental health unit (for suicidal ideation), one can hear the astonished and surprised tonal reaction in this "detective's" voice as she comments back to the child making such a statement. H made extreme remarks of not having a daddy anymore, a new daddy, a new Hebrew name and more, clear indications to any child crimes professional of indications of parental coaching which would necessitate further investigation.

  4. H's pleas about how disgusting her house mates were and that she couldn't talk about it also gave rise to the need to investigate further. She also violated clear policy and standard operating procedure among child crimes detectives to NOT allow either advance notice to an alleged perpetrator or co-perpetrator, and worse, further allowing THEM to be the parent who brings in the child, WITH far advance notice and thus ample coaching opportunities. She had ample OCS co-workers also listening who knew full well, or should have known, or could have easily found out just who H's roommates she feared as "disgusting" were, just based on that infamous street address alone. When she failed to follow up with home visits or recommend a home study of all the occupants AT the home she became, IN FACT, the single main one person who must bear ALL the responsibility for all the abuse which happened to all 9 of these children, NOT just 5, from that point forward. The little boy who suffered 3rd degree burns, untreated for 5 months to the consequence of hatching a nest of crawling maggots in his untreated wounds, this WAS her fault, to have so easily been able to be prevented, the un-treatments of those burns, not the burn itself, from happening.

  5. H suffered major trauma and abuse after that time she will need tens of thousands of dollars of counseling for to give her the best odds of not carrying risky consequences into her adult life and risks of future directly consequential marriage problems. I would say Cynthia Bradley's qualified immunity is marginal at best in this area, but I would have to be honest that I doubt she had actual intent for these consequences to occur so I cannot ask to hold her individually liable.

    Allegations Against Robert Heun as Chief of Anchorage Police Department:

  1. I make the following allegations of fact against the Anchorage Police Department, this party, only as it relates to issues arising out of his supervisory actions as Chief of Police.

  2. I will show not just an event or two, but a long-standing pattern of openly obstructing of evidence, suppression of evidence, altering of evidence and just obstruction of justice in general.  There is on record multiple outright and extreme lies by officers that had major detrimental damages to myself.   Just ONLY one example of the egregious and vindictive discriminatory nature of these officers shameless dishonesty is their actions in the false arrest and charging of Mr. N with criminal animal cruelty, to the extent that eventually the motion to dismiss was granted. To hurt my image before the arraignment judge, the female APD officer told the magistrate that the reason I did not want to give him my residence address was because I had multiple DV's against me and I was scared that the police could find me.

  3. But in fact she was told, as I have, on my own TAPE, and had every reason to know from her screen notes that the EXACT opposite was true; I had suffered enormously and to great financial costs from the extensive history of domestic violence AGAINST me, not DV's committed by me, having ZERO findings against me from any of the 9 or 10 falsely filed DV's against me by the mother, all either denied at the outset or dissolved, as false, shortly thereafter, having even to have been evicted from my home, immediately adjacent to Prominence Point from too many and too visible late night over lighted and flashing police visits just to serve 20 day DV's, (NOT normally done this way at all - - for non-muslims and/or professionals or other white-collar types). APD screwed up in their attempt for instance to destroy crucial evidence, tape recorded, related to the mother's live-in times with the infamous K household, but they screwed up by accident. No such evidence tag number exists for that piece of evidence for which I was granted a specific bench subpoena to get ALL related evidence for, because it was destroyed to cover-up by the Anchorage Police Department.

  4. They tried to erase it, and I only got it by the luck of their sloppy accident. They somehow left a 51 second undeleted portion of this taped interview of a house visit on the back side of a tape with a different evidence tag number that “appeared” to have only one side.   But while driving in traffic with the cassette going and it flips to auto-reverse and I don't have time to eject it it suddenly shows up the smoking-gun THEY tried to hide and by my luck, just the crucial 51 seconds I needed.    I will show that APD exercised their discretion to bend way over backwards to avoid chargings of Ms. P for her multiple incidents of DV violations and in every way to her benefit and exercised an exact opposite discretionary “stretch” whenever it was possible to “get” me, for example my animal cruelty arrest. There were a couple of exceptions by a couple of officers to this behavior, one who unofficially later shared with me how he got in a lot of trouble for doing “what I was supposed to do”.

  5. These actions contributed directly to H's consequential injuries and to my hardships and consequential damages and was actually, except for their immunity, intentional infliction of emotional harm - - and with a a smart-alec smile by a few of them, just to show “who has the power here”. APD needs to share in a deterrent level and not insanely excessive damage ward to me but more importantly in the future costs of H's therapy needs.


    Allegations Against Dana Fabe as The Alaska Supreme Court:

  6. I make the following allegations of fact against the Alaska Supreme Court, this party, only as it relates to issues arising out of her connection as the named representative, Chief Justice of The Supreme Court. From my novice pro-se research, many rules of court and appellate courts and court and appellate procedures, relate to minimal constitutional due-process assurances of rights to be heard, to have one's grievances and/or allegations to be considered for findings, and/or points of appeal, that are material issues of fact or a legal dispute to be considered for resolution.

  7. While the states, as I understand it so far, may have wide latitudes to make their own and somewhat differing court rules etc, to the extent their actions cross these due-process and constitutional lines these state courts are in violation of minimal “universal” rights any American citizen must be able to have in any of the 50 states, in order to “freely transit between them”. To that extent and to that extent only, in case my legal research is off, is the limit of the declaratory relief I am seeking from the federal court “over” the Alaska state court.

  8. State appellate courts, that court of last guaranteed resort, for that state's citizens cannot be allowed to exceed minimum standards if we as a nation are to preserve a level of universalism between the various states in minimal jurisprudence standards.

  9. I can show the Alaska Supreme Court knowingly participated in these cover-up abuses of process through their attempts to back-up the lower courts, when their very own precedents clearly showed otherwise. An appellate court cannot be allowed to lie about material facts. They cannot just say without showing, for example here, that the lower court issued a statutory valid interim custody order when they KNOW it did no such thing, and instead openly and brazenly violated my constitutional due process rights; especially when this “high” court's method is to just say there was a valid custody decision without citing to a date or some other evidence that such an event really took place. IT DIDN'T!!

  10. A high court cannot just chose to totally ignore valid points of appeal alleging due-process issues. It could rule those points are not discussed for findings because they are without merit, possibly, but NOT just totally 100% ignore them as if those points were NEVER raised. This is “legibus solutus” jurisprudence.

  11. I can provide several examples of the Supreme Court “irregularities”, connected with my various appeals over these issues. One last example of their disrespectful jurisprudence at minimum, by anybodies standards, is when this appellate body totally 100% ignored my most material point of appeal, in my most recent last appeal. Plus it was the appellate's FIRST ruling in our states new 2004 custody Statutes precedent-interpretive history; from a domestic violence finding appeal which required non-optional rulings from the lower court if a history of domestic violence could be shown. This party 100% ignored this most material of points of appeal in it's written dismissal of my appeal as being mooted by the divorce court's subsequent actions, AND, which should NOT have qualified as a memorandum decision.

  12. When my petition for rehearing noted this fact this court's response was not to grant a partial re-hearing to make the appellate finding, but just as an add on “note” to their denial for rehearing. Thus I did not receive my right to file a petition for rehearing to that most crucial of findings, as to the extensive domestic violence history and reckless endangerment of children' issues of this case - - on the mother's side . Their finding was remarkably, in essence, and end run, implying in effect that even tho the law appears to clearly say this mandatory thing we have determined, that at least in this case alone, it doesn't apply, and nor do we have to explain this; just state it, say without showing as the cliché goes. Why? Because we are the 500lb gorilla? Inexcusable and highly disrespectful arrogance!

    Allegations Against Judge Morgan Christen:

  13. I make the following allegations of fact against Judge Morgan Christen, this party, only as it relates to issues arising out of her capacity to exercise discretion as a judge with absolute immunity, outside of declaratory relief.

  14. She has repeatedly and openly refused due-process rights to mandatory evidentiary hearings, totally ignored most motions, refused to meaningfully enforce against a violation and outright flaunting of almost all of her issued court orders as to Ms. P. I have a 14th amendment right to equal enforcement of the law; not anything as lopsided as the history of this case.. I will show as already well exampled above a mass amount of open discrimination, biased and disparate rulings, and outright dishonest cover-up behaviors, AND not only relating to her covering-up of the K case child sexual abuse issues and the existence of NINE children not the falsely known figure of just five; but in other areas as well.

  15. She has suppressed evidence, altered dates, “lost” crucial filings then blamed this on us, and just outright lied many times, my first two attorney's quit in disgust and bewilderment, saying maybe I was marked somehow. Later, other attorney's wouldn't touch such a case with “a ten foot pole”. I will submit “annotated” copies of some of her decisions to showing, FROM THE RECORD OF FILINGS, what she actually knew versus what she actually wrote.

  16. For just one further example here; due to the 'holy-war” mentality over Mr. N's Muslim religion, there has been no shortage of folks coming to the aid of “agenda”. Banner Christian Academy, for instance, claimed H was performing her second grade work at an honor role level; while her actual work and math and language abilities showed the exact opposite. When there was week to week custody Mr. N was forced to home-school our child and DID, as filed examples to the court PROVED, that Mr. N. was catching her up quite a bit, but not nearly enough since my $450. worth of five different independent professional testings showed she was instead operating at barely a first grade level in most areas.

  17. She was tested and verified to have learning disabilities to the extent that she was recommended to go to a special summer school program at a school specializing in learning disabilities. H's principle of Holy Rosary Academy, also tested her similarly and was so concerned our child attend this summer school program that this school principle wrote a beg-to-the-court letter that H could not even qualify for repeating the second grade at their school if she did not get to attend this program based on their tests and evaluations of her.

  18. This “judges” exercise of discretion as to the schooling decision she finally made totally ignoring this recommendation IS NOT THE ABUSE OF PROCESS HERE AT ALL. A judge has a solemn duty in a finding to relate ALL and each of the material evidences that were presented to her when making a finding, otherwise how could an appellate court make any appellate finding of “contrary to the evidence”?

  19. It is this judges use of plainly intended to mislead “spin” (fine for advocacy law but not judicial jurisprudence where it CANNOT be allowed), her mass abuse of evidence, her outright lying from the bench and more that is the abuse of process here and not any exercise of her findings discretion however incompetent or bad faith intended that might be; the process style of her behaviors not their quality, her intents not her results where the appearance of open and shameless bias and outright vindictiveness has been unavoidable to almost every attorney whose looked at this case. It is declaratory relief ONLY as to the abuse of process, that Mr. N is asking the courts relief for, not injunctive or otherwise. Judicial malfeasance here on a grand scale.

    Allegations Against Rachel Gernat:

  20. I make the following allegations of fact against Rachel Gernat, in her individual capacity acting outside the color of law and outside the scope of her areas of discretion as a Palmer District Attorney. I also seek declaratory and injunctive relief from her actions in her official capacity as they might concern her complicity in the horrid cover-up activities of this case long-time Judge Michael Wolverton has called for a tribunal over, begging the question that more important here is "WHAT" all these children have been victims of, AND "by WHOM." To the extent Ms. Gernat actions in failure to report and cover-up have injured innocent children, especially our child, H, a subject in this case, she needs to share in compensatory and ESPECIALLY, the punitive damages awards.

  21. With injunctive assistance I will be able to show extensive complicity at even what I at least would call criminal levels of her complicity in the extensive cover-up activities over all the children connected to the State Of Alaska's OCS's intentional “dumping-off” of three children who they knew full well would be sexually abusing other children - - and without telling the unsuspecting good-faith adopting parents. The current estimate is between 10 – 20 affected children.

  22. I will be able to show that her failure to report was a major contributive factor in the failure of our daughter, H to obtain the assistance two different child-abuse professional and well qualified expert witnesses testified to in open court as to the various needs H had to properly address the highly probable sexual abuse she most likely experienced; but this does not count all the egregious amounts of almost daily (according to what Ms. Gernat has said to the press) domestic violence H was forced to watch.

  23. I will show, with injunctive assistance, and likely even without it, of what I would call criminal levels of retributive cover-up activities this woman has inflicted upon or threatened to upon anyone who dares to question her “take” on what really happened in the Wasilla Child Abuse Case.

  24. I will be able to show with ZERO injunctive assistance here MULTIPLE incidents of criminal levels of official and criminal perjury activity in her cover-up activities; just for one example her intentional falsely filed 104 criminal indictments against P& S   K where she intentionally mis-listed the address where these alleged crimes occurred in order to cover-up the total existance, from the public's eyes at least that this infamous case mainly occurred in Anchorage NOT Wasilla and that there were for some time NINE children involved NOT just five.

  25. All this does not even count her public duties to prosecute and charge she failed to perform with criminal cover-up intent.

  26. I have copies of many of her emails furnished to me by concerned citizens, I can show her collusions with former Trooper Ruth Josten, her coaching assistance to State Troopers to say what they knew to NOT be true as has just been proven in these troopers OWN voices when she wasn't thinking and played tapes of what they really knew as EARLY as they really knew it so that she could stage some big media event to promote OCS's needs by her false pursuit of trial against at least S L. Her vindictiveness over Ms. L's attempts to gain help for these affected and covered-up child sex-abuse victims, and her intentional exaggerations and even MULTUIPLE FALSE statements in her fabrications of 104 indictments she KNEW to NOT be true for too many of them has resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses for many people, the State of Alaska, and massive amounts of emotional pain and hardships for large numbers of people, included among these damaged is myself and her consequences to our daughter H.

    Allegations Against Tammy Sandoval As The Alaska Office Of Children's Services, And Officially and Individually, Case Workers,

    Lynn Chandler and Sharon Faulkner:

  27. I make the following allegations of fact against Tammy Sandoval, this party, only as it relates to issues arising out of her capacity to exercise discretion as the head of this child protective agency. I am asking for monetary damages FROM this agency for BOTH agency malpractice, and individuals malpractice outside the color of law and the scopes of their discretionary latitudes.

  28. Note: I personally do NOT hold ANY bad feelings toward ANY of these innocent children described below because in spite of the fact that one of them more likely than not sexually abused our child, how can any parent hold any child with such a horrid childhood history who NEVER knew or experienced what parental love was; how can anyone hold any of these children responsible for actions they might have done in their efforts to obtain at least attention, if not love  - - -   from someone,   anyone.          Nightmarish!!

  29. OCS in it's official capacity has committed one of the major child-abuse crimes of the century according to what some professionals have opinioned to me. But according to Judge Michael Wolverton, NOT just opinion as to the egregiousness of what they perpetrated here, criminal levels or not, as this Judge himself chose the word “Tribunal” to use as HIS choice from many other word choices he could have made when making his public remarks to a highly inflamed and upset public over the media described horridness of this “Wasilla Child Abuse Case”.

  30. To knowingly place children one KNOWS has a past record of both massive amounts of false allegations against former foster parents and past history of perpetrating sexual abuse on other children, and to do this without telling the innocent unsuspecting good-faith adopting parents who specifically checked the form location, where they stated they DID NOT wish to receive such children is simple - - to us common parents out her, this IS a war crime of serious proportions; making Judge Wolverton's choice of words VERY appropriate,  and  then to exasperate these crimes by by “grapevine-communication” to the various law enforcement and other related agencies NOT to intervene in all the reports of harm OCS KNEW would be forthcoming is just a crime of unbelievable proportions.

  31. YET THIS IS WHAT JUDGE WOLVERTON FOUND AND STATED TO THE PUBLIC ON JANUARY 8, 2007 after those 104 indictments had been reduced by truth squads to only THREE and he let the K's off with time-served ONLY.

  32. Judge Wolverton's statement and plea for a tribunal: “What really were these childrens victims of [not what was charged] and by whom [not the K's]?

  33. I can show multiple people who tried to report and get any official to intervene into these children's out of control lives almost ONE year before even the FIRST arrest. Just our own efforts, as the 5 ½ year landlord to these people is mind boggling to have NOT resulted in ANY intervention by anyone. Our multiple efforts are WELL documented in the PUBLIC records, our calls to OCS, to the police, to the Fire Department; we even tried to have our own house condemned to get some intervention for those kids.

  34. I will show a well established and officially sponsored pattern by this agency in what amounts to no less than flamboyantly open and shameless gender-apartheid.

  35. I will show, with and without any injunctive assistance at all, levels of intentional agenda-motivated dishonesty that leaves a fair-minded person just breathless, not counting the harmful and cruel intended lies toward me. For just one example, here at the complaint stage, OCS was asked by the court to investigate the allegations that H was sodomized at (a pre-school age level),  that took place at the K-case sentencing hearings; they never even ordered the log-notes of the sentencing hearings; let alone the tapes, nor looked into ANY of the related info that only they had access to that could answer so many questions. All they did was make one chit-chat phone call to Rachel Gernat, then falsely accused me, without listing any documentation or ANY other corroborative or supportive evidence at all that in fact it was me who was most likely the sexual abuser here, a pure say without ANY showing at all.

  36. Then to top that off they stated that the father of H insisted on having his daughter vaginally examined. ANY parent who reads this as a false allegation BY AN OFFICIAL AND EVIDENTIARY AGENCY ENTRUSTED BY THE PUBLIC WITH SUCH TYRANNICAL POWERS THAT MAKE IRS LOOK TAME, would understand how one could take such such offense at such agency behaviors. In fact both THEIR own records and the court records show THE EXACT OPPOSITE was true, it was Mr. N who was trying to prevent THEM from doing this as a part of their cover-up activities..

    My sister is a long-time MD doctor in Alaska, who like most doctors have nothing but disrespect for this agency, she warned me what they might try to do to “cover-their-ass” is that THEY, OCS, not the father, would order her to have a vaginal/anal exam but they would see that it was a sloppy one that would show negative results. Following her advice to PREVENT just such a sex-crime against our daughter by the very agency that was supposed to be protecting her private parts NOT violating them, just for cover-up, I filed in court and HAND-SERVED upon OCS a document entitiled “Opposition” to any SART (S-exual A-buse R-esponse T-reatment) unless it was with conscious sedation and a whole list of evidentiary safeguards like the use of special scar highlighting dyes and special light filtered video-graphy documentation of the whole procedure, BUT one that could NOT happen until AFTER they had REAL evidence for a need and TWO separate recommendations from experienced Pediatric SART examiners who would NOT be the ones performing the exam. Such mental cruelty to parents cannot be allowed to stand without extreme punitive damages; mostly for deterrent purposes.

  37. I can show multiple violations of their very own policies with regard to their handling of our case, agency malpractice to the extreme, that have severely damaged both myself, both financially and emotionally but more importantly how their criminal behavior has damaged our daughter, H.

  38. I will show multiple and separate acts of openly reducing to writing their reports from the video-graphed Alaska Cares, child interviews that qualify as blatant false reporting, obstruction of justice and evidence. These interviews are supposed to be subject limited not gossipy, emotionally-disturbed curiosity “fishing-expeditions”. Such activities WILL be shown as harmful to our child and counter-productive to child-protection.

  39. Lynn Chandler, case worker, in BOTH her individual and official capacities. I make the following allegations of fact against her both from her official capacity and individually.

  40. She engaged in a pattern of discrimination against me that resulted in damages to both myself and my daughter, based on my religion, my gender, and retributive over my active detective work, in gathering information about these OCS crimes from ex-OCS workers, other affected parents and etc. She engaged in numerous false statements used against me. She engaged in multiple obstructions of evidence and other egregious actions.

  41. One example for the complaint stage that just recently occurred in September/October of this year, 2008. She knowingly used, what she knew were allegations identical to other allegations already made by the mother and rejected at least three times to recommend to police that H not see her father.

  42. Sharon Faulkner, case worker, in BOTH her individual and official capacities. I make the following allegations of fact against her both from her official capacity and individually.

  43. She engaged in a pattern of discrimination against me that resulted in damages to both myself and my daughter, based on my religion, my gender, and retributive over my active detective work, in gathering information about these OCS crimes from ex-OCS workers, other affected parents and etc. She engaged in numerous false statements used against me. She engaged in multiple obstructions of evidence and other egregious actions.

  44. Just one example is above, she is the person responsible for falsely accusing me of insisting my daughter be vaginally examined.

  45. I will be requested injunctive relief, at minimum to ascertain if in fact OCS has already had performed on our child, H, one of their sloppy-on-purpose un-sedated vaginal exams upon innocent young girl-children, without my knowledge.

    Cause of action Against Barbara Malchick As Supervisory

    Guardian-ad-Litem For Alaska Office Of Public Advocacy

  46. Barb Malchick, only in her Supervisory Capacity and ONLY in relation to what MAY or may NOT be appropriate relief that is both declaratory and injunctive. This party pertains ONLY to future injunctive relief, ZERO bad faith, YET, of any kind is even implied.

  47. Jurisdictional note: At first glance adding this person/agency as a party might legitimately appear to be asking the federal court to do what it emphatically and historically has not done, delve into family law and/or domestic matters. To the extent this parties involvement in H's life and or my divorce case acts within the best interests of the child, I agree from my pro-se novice legal research there is clearly not federal court jurisdiction to consider these matters. But this complaint presents supportable allegations of a grapevine, good-ole-boy, fraternal-loyalty cover-up and obstruction of justice. To the extent that actions or failures to act cross constitutional lines like preventing due-process thru cover-up tends to do, I have sincerely believed there could be federal court jurisdiction here as to what amounts to “light” but still affect-crucial injunctive and declarative relief.

  48. The cause of action here is that I allege Judge Christen is “employing” the GAL to make end-runs around her 2004 Statutory mandate that the mother of H, can no longer have either even joint physical or legal custody or especially sole legal custody; an intentionally narrow based “fishing expedition” for them to find “something”, as if to say, please, to bail me out of, what I don't want to do which is to follow the law here - - assist in the cover-ups. Specifically, I allege any GAL for H has certain minimal duties to investigate many of these very HIGHLY CUSTODY APPROPRIATE things Judge Morgan Christen has been doing her best to cover-up and PREVENT evidence from being offered on. Highest on this list is the mother's massive and highly documented history of reckless endangerment of her very own children.

  49. Because of the high documentation this should be an easy, simple and little time needed thing. However, all previous investigators, paying “couched” lip service to Judge Christen's hinted-agenda, have all and each intentionally avoided to look at custody crucial evidence that is easily available.

  50. Just one unbelievable example for the complaint stage herein. D P's parental choice making abilities have historically been so challenged to have been already well commented on by two different mental health professionals in official written reports (yes more “cherry-picking” of the evidence by “judge” Morgan Christen; the cherry-picking of evidence is a job for advocacy law NOT the jurisprudence style of an acting judge).

  51. In 2003 at [*age-redacted; in her early teens], Ms. P's oldest daughter, RP, found herself into involuntary commitment in the teen mental health unit of Providence Hospital, The Discovery Unit, (for suicidal ideation) for many weeks. Since then she has been in and out of the Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API), several times, and at only [*age-redacted; in her late teens] accumulated two separate felony indictments and a long-term DV against her within only a few weeks time. WHY?   Female RP was only agreed by her treatment team to be released to her mother upon very strict release conditions of 24/7 VERY close supervision and that this troubled child was to get obtained for her immediate professional mental-health intervention to continue what she had started from in Providence. The mother had no intentions to follow this professional advice, and did not,  for the welfare of her daughter.

  52. She within a week or so, placed this still highly troubled teen girl into her very own apartment at only [*age-redacted; in her early teens], all alone, and miles from the mother's home. And worse, allowing the child to choose an apartment the mother was warned about was only a couple blocks from Anchorages world famous “she-meat” meet bar, Chilkoot Charlies. Consequently,  it was only weeks before the management of this apartment building became alarmed from “incidents” and asked the mother to remove her child from THEIR responsibilities for this obviously vulnerable teen and those possibilities consequential to them, from the total LACK of motherly care. Whereupon, what did this “mother” do next?  Unbelievably, next she puts her child into live inside the household of the most famous case of child abuse in Alaska History, the P& S   K household, where two good faith adopting parents were engaged in “warfare” of how to control 4 children that should have been institutionalized, and who OCS had told them after being confronted by the K's what OCS had done to them; “too bad, folks we don't take kids back.”

  53. Many of these people do not belong around children period, let alone charged with the public's trust to be protecting them, people who many openly reveal neurotic-sadistic proclivities. Whether the mother of H has atrocious and easily verifiable records of mass amounts of reckless endangerment of children is definitely a PRIMARY duty for ANY GAL to pursue, NOT just an option to leave silently aside in order to conduct come fishing expedition to support a sitting judge in complicity to assist in the cover-up of crimes against children.

    Allegations Against Josh Fannon

  54. I make the following allegations of fact against, Josh Fannon, Attorney at Law, in his individual capacity for the damage consequences to our child H, arising from his Felony failure to report known suspicions of child sexual abuse. The attorney/client privilege would apply only to his client S K who was a witness ONLY to what allegedly happened to H, and more importantly was and still IS considered by H to be the hero who intervened in what was happening to her from two children and “stopped-them”. Surely the publics interest in assuring the reporting of suspicions of child sexual abuse far exceeds and slight constitutional risks in merely just reporting the existence of a suspicion. Josh Fannon had this knowledge and should have reported it, and must share in the consequences to H from his misbehaviors.

    Special Explanatory Aid And Addendum To Complaint Regarding The Evidence Favorable To And Favorable Against Whether Our Child H Was Sodomized By One Or More Of The K Children. .

  55. Evidence of record favorable to a

    probable cause for child being sodomized.

    Evidence of record favorable to a probable cause that S K's testimony that H was sodomized in January of 2004 by teen female SBK, **** Wellsley Court, Anchorage Alaska is as follows. Consecutive time-line. Because the “system” is presumed to be both honest and the more likely to be correct than some uneducated pro-se I state the following is all evidence from the existing file records. It seems that it would be helpful to more put things in perspective when evaluating a pro-se complaint.

  56. The “system” says the father is crazy for “insisting” his daughter was abused, even though they CANNOT cite one sentence anywhere, or show one statement anywhere where the father has shown or even said such a thing, or, ever done anything but insist that ALL he wants of the “system” is to investigate ALL the facts and contact ALL the witnesses to help H (for future purposes, NOT present) to know what did or "more importantly did NOT happen to her (my quote made multiple times in the record)”

  57. I say the evidence below is so probable that the “system” is criminally negligent for failing to normally and fully and fairly to have EVER, (they haven't yet) investigated the facts or contacted adult witnesses surrounding these events.

  58. Approx. early-December 2003,  D P  is asked by manager to remove her [*age-redacted; in her early teens] yr old teen daughter, RP from where she was living all alone in her very own apartment for “cause”. DP meets and reconciles and “BEYOND” with her tenants, the K's whom she had for weeks been trying to evict. DP moves RP into live with the K's. Then on Dec 18, 2003 R N relinquishes his court-ordered right to live in the families 3 bedroom double-wide mobile home they formerly used as one of their 4 rentals, stipulates for DP and children to live there instead as only remaining home they had available to live in. Visitation ordered by court to be EVERY Saturday 12 noon to 6pm Sunday for the father. Dec. 19, 2003, father offers 2 weeks of not visiting with H for therapeutic-beneficial reasons.

  59. Before 25 December, DP moves out of the families mortgage free mobile home and into the household of the K's; nine children and 3 adults in a destroyed barely inhabitable 4/5 bedroom house at **** W****** Court in Anchorage; mobile left empty and unoccupied. January 2, 2004 H only, not her sister (8) as well suddenly pulled from school/pre-school/day-care location for the entire remaining duration of January. School officials tell Mr. N's attorney they considered this very strange behavior for mom and were somewhat alarmed and concerned for child, thinking it had something to do with the father. ALL visitation and phone contact of any kind is refused to father. Child kept out of school and secluded to the house till the first court “threatened” visit must occur with the father on on Saturday Jan 31, 2004. Mother and attorney grant fathers request for a two hour ONLY visit at the local Barnes and Nobles book Store, on Thursday Jan. 29, 2004.

  60. Child arrives highly traumatized, visit occurs totally within the Barnes and Nobles cafe, is witnessed by a continuing presence of at least a minimum of 4 adult protective witnesses (hidden during drop-off period, also per atty advice) and is tape recorded per advice of attorney C S. Friday morning Ms. S receives a call from DP's attorney Moshe Zorea that they had taken H to a Doctor who had verification that Mr. N had sodomized H by forcing suppositories into her at the bookstore visit the night before. Ms. S tells Mr. Zorea how this was impossible and that now HE must provide a believable explanation for this accusation or Mr. N will file a report of harm early next week. DP's attorney drops all allegations and it's never mentioned again - - or explained. Saturday afternoon, Mr. N, picks up H, and immediately takes her to a pre-scheduled physical, per atty advice, where child remains all afternoon unexpectedly and out of character, for her, traumatized for the Dr. to have a very light look at her if she will remove her panties. Dr. recommends come back after last appointment when she can spend some time with child after hearing story told by child in car on the way to the Doctors.

  61. Child had related a horrid story of being “tied up at the ankles and having 5 things forced up my butt till Miss S came in and told those bad children to stop, she said they were very bad and sent them to their room and was very mad with them and she comforted me; I like her (paraphrased for brevity and clarity but in-context)” Entire visit with Dr. attended by one of Mr. N's protective witnesses who attorney warned NEVER to be outside the presence of 24/7. And entire visit was audio taped, also per advice. Later Dr takes child for private interview with still no luck with her panty problem. She has private talk with adult witness and father while child plays, and asks to downplay the sexual allegations till more information might become available because with DFYS (OCS's name then) such a report could generate more harm than what might have happened. Father agrees, female adult witness and father finally get child to “change” panties for some new ones while the Dr. takes a super quick peak and sees nothing significant.

  62. She writes in her report that she is very concerned about a teen named B (fully named in report with the same name as given by S K in her testimony about the abuse) who hurts kids. That evening and next day child exhibits extreme sexual acting-out behaviors and wordage of impossible knowledge for any normal (pre-school aged)  year old girl. That evening while a whole room full of adults watches the Sound of Music with H and daddy, their favorite movie, while Mr. N steps aside to get something child says to Mr. N's adult daughter and closest sister to H, having been her main babysitter, “would you like to eat my pee-pee while opening her legs and pulling apart her panties like a porn-star. She later tries to French Kiss another adult female witness. Tries to touch her father's crotch, tries to gently force his hand into her crotch, ALL before witnesses and within minutes of each other.

  63. Father leaves house to cry for over 90 minutes over what ever has happened to his daughter. Atty S asks Zorea for name of Doctor they took H to, refused. H also stated she had been to a MALE doctor who looked at my butt but I didn't want him too. Atty S tells Mr. N to give Ms. P only one day before reporting this to DFYS. Files report of harm around Feb 4, 2004. Alaska Cares interview occurs soon after, child relates identical story then responds to a clearly leading question that she just made the story up.

  64. NONE, ZERO of the sexual abuse witnesses of Mr. N, or the Pediatrician are EVER contacted by OCS, APD, the Custody Investigator, or anyone. Jan 8 2007, Judge Wolverton makes special comments to the public in his sentencing remarks about how OCS “dumped-off” these three siblings with sexual abuse records and histories as both perpetrators and victims, AFTER the K's had clearly marked their applications NOT to receive such children for adoption, AND without “full disclosure” to the K's. And, the above is a highly abbreviated version of the evidence available

    Evidence of record NOT favorable to a

    probable cause for child being sodomized.

  1. The child has denied this occurred in only ONE Alaska Cares interview after being asked if she was telling the truth. Such a thing could not have happened to child according to both OCS's and the Child Custody Investigators chit-chat phone call with Rachel Gernat, the prosecuting DA attorney in the K case. This is because Rachel said S is all lies and was just trying to get a lighter sentence. Besides, according to OCS the only person who has likely sexually assaulted child is the father because we say so because we think so even tho we don't have ONE piece of data, other than high multiples of accusations by the mother, (after the parties had separated) to support such a claim. For these reasons the court feels the father is crazy for insisting the State more adedquately investigate what happened to his daughter while living in the horrid house of the K's where according to Rachel Gernat the children there had to be witnessing domestic violence at high levels almost daily.

    WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, R N, respectfully prays from these allegations for relief as follows:

  2. For injunctive and declarative relief;.

  3. For compensatory and punitive damages;

  4. For any and all other relief to which the Plaintiff may appear entitled.

    R N, concludes his statements of belief to the best of his knowledge under penalty of perjury.


    R N, pro-se

1The full portion of Judge Wolverton's statement from which these excerpts have been taken is: Judge Michael Wolverton said: "The children involved in this case were victims, no questions. I think THE GREATER QUESTION THOUGH IS TO DETERMINE EXACTLY WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN VICTIMS OF AND BY WHOM in every instance? . . . I'll make one more brief comment, before imposing sentencing. ( note: judge sided with defense NOT prosecutor for time served with probation added for S K) As I said I cannot square the varying perspectives of what went on here. But this much seems clear to me. For varying reasons, the victims, the family members and the defendants are in agreement with one thing, this is a placement that it seems to me should never have been made. It was uncontradicted that the K's had specifically noted, they checked the box that they did not feel qualified to parent children with a particular set of difficulties and never the less these children with precisely these sets of difficulties were placed with the K's without full disclosure. That doesn't excuse the conduct here, I just find it clearly concerning and the reasons for this placement and the responsibility for that placement are something to be sorted out, I HOPE, BY ANOTHER TRIBUNAL, at a later time.(caps emphasis has been added)" 3PA-04-2686CR & 89CR, S.O.A. vs. K'S (P and S, respectively) 01/08/'07; transcribed from Sentencing Remarks.

2 Since that time Judge Morgan Christen has continued her pattern of refusing to hold the precedent mandated evidentiary hearings when modifying custody, refused to follow the clear and recent precedents of Alaska's newer 2004 domestic violence custody MANDATES, openly and unabashedly advocating from the bench on Ms. P's behalf, even to the extent of interfering to get Ms. P's criminal cases dropped, by making judicial findings she knew to be outright lies.