THE PROTECTION OF DUE PROCESS FOR U.S. CITIZENS
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States (and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, 'WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW' ; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the law. Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States (and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, 'WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW' ; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the law. Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
WE NEED YOUR VOICE1.) “The right to rear one’s children is so deeply embedded in our history and culture that it has been identified as a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.’ Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232-33, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 1541-42, 32 L.Ed.2d 15, 35 (1972).
2.) "This view of human liberties found in the Constitution postulates all fundamental rights not clearly defined by the government, but nonetheless are inalienable and inherent to every individual, anteceding government." Henkin Louis; Rosenthal, Albert J. (1990). Constitutionalism and rights: influence of the United States Constitution abroad. Columbia University Press. pp. 2–3. 3.) “A parent’s right to uninterrupted access to & care of a child ranks far more precious than property rights.” Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex.1985) and is indeed a “fundamental” liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.”Stantosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745,753 (1982).
4.) “In the case of parental rights the natural right which exists between parents and their children is one of Constitutional dimensions.” Wiley v. Spratlan, 543 S.W.2d 349, 352 (Tex. 1976). 5.) "(a) [Whoever] removes a child from the United States, or attempts to do so, or [retains] a child (who was in the United States) outside the United States with intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both. UNITED STATES CODE: 18 U.S.C.A. § 1204 6.) Parental Rights of Custody under the Law of the State of Alessia's prior habitual residence pursuant to Articles 3 & 5 of the Hague Convention: "A parent of a child: (1) has the ‘right’ to have [p]hysical possession; to direct moral & religious training [and to designate the residence of the child];… inter alia, (7) the right to represent the child in a legal action and make decisions of substantial legal significance concerning the child… and (11) any other ‘right or duty’ existing between parent& child by virtue of law’ [emphasis, bold & italics added; less-applicable omitted]. TEXAS FAMILY CODE § 151.001 7.) "(a) A [p]erson who takes or [retains] possession of a child or conceals whereabouts of a child in violation of a [p]ossessory right of another person may be liable for damages to that person; (b) A ‘possessory’ right is violated by the taking, ‘[retention]’ or concealment of a child at a time when another person is [entitled] to possession of [or access to] the child.’ [emphasis added] TEXAS FAMILY CODE § 42.002 Due Process is the legal requirement that 'must' respect all legal and implied rights owed to a person; including the right to fair and impartial trial. When a government or court harms a person, without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a Due-Process violation. * Not only did Simmone wrongfully remove and retain Alessia from the United States pursuant to U.S. and International law; evidence from the U.S. Department of State confirms that during and after the arbitrary decision refusing Alessia's return home - Simmone denied Bart any and all contact with Alessia on Father's Day 2010, followed by another refusal during a three week trip Bart & his mother made in April 2011 to hopefully see Alessia. Simmone later refused the United State's request to conduct a 'Welfare and Whereabouts' check coordinated with British authorities and the U.S. Embassy in London. Bart has had no word or contact with Alessia for 1 year & 10 months. 
THE LAST TIME BART HELD ALESSIA - Oct 23, 2010
|
ALESSIA & BART
WE NEED YOUR VOICE
BREACH OF DUE PROCESS
* Alessia’s Father did not have the benefit of a [fair] adversarial proceeding as he was unable, at various stages of these proceedings to even adduce arguments & evidence considered relevant to the case within terms of Articles 30 and 23 of the Hague Convention. Bart did not have opportunity to effectively challenge arguments and evidence [erroneously] adduced by the opposing party with evidence he had available. All of his arguments which should have been viewed objectively and were relevant to the resolution of Alessia’s case were [not] duly heard and/or they were not examined by the court. Therefore any alleged factual and legal reasons for this [arbitrary] decision were [not] arrived at fairly and/or impartially. To not allow said evidence is a direct violation of Articles 30, 23 and 8(g)(f) of the Hague Convention, and a Human Rights violation pursuant to Article 6 § 1 of the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) for a fair and impartial trial. |