Recusal due to bias, prejudice and possible Title IV-D Violations Judge: David Beyersdorf Dept: 3

????? I request the Court to take judicial notice of the fact that I am without counsel, am not schooled in law and legal procedures and am not licensed to practice law. Therefore, me

pleadings must be read and construed liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 US at 520 (1980); Birl

v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592 (1981).

Further I believe that this court has a responsibility and legal duty to protect all my son’s and me constitutional and statutory rights. See United States v. Lee, 106 US 196,220 [1882]

I, Nathaniel Smith, the loving father of Carter Nathaniel Smith. The statements I provide in this Petition are based on my personal knowledge and beliefs, and I hereby declare that they are true facts to the best of my understanding.

?

???? I.??????????? Judicial Canon 3B (5,6,7)

?

I would like to bring your attention to Canon 3B (5, 6, 7). These canons are judicial rules and guidelines that judges must follow in their official capacity. I will be referring to these throughout the upcoming federal lawsuit, where I will be challenging the immunities of both Judge Campbell and Judge Beyersdorf for their actions, which have adversely impacted our children. This is particularly disheartening as these children represent our next generation of leaders, and I fervently hope they do not inherit the dishonorable practices of judges who betray their oath to the greatest document ever written, "The Constitution." I ask that you reflect on whether you have adhered to these rules. Here are what these canons state, with emphasis on the areas that I believe are particularly relevant to this case involving Judge Campbell and Judge Beyersdorf.

?

(5) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, engage in speech, gestures, or other conduct that would reasonably be perceived as (a) bias, prejudice, or harassment, including but not limited to bias, prejudice, or harassment based upon race, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, or (b) sexual harassment.

?

(6) A judge shall require* lawyers in proceedings before the judge to refrain from (a)

manifesting, by words or conduct, bias, prejudice, or harassment based upon race, sex, gender,

gender identity, gender expression, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual

orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, or (b) sexual harassment

against parties, witnesses, counsel, or others. This canon does not preclude legitimate advocacy

when race, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, religion, national origin, ethnicity,

disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, political affiliation, or

Other similar factors are issues in the proceeding.

?

(7) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law. Unless otherwise authorized by law, a judge shall not independently investigate facts in a proceeding and shall consider only the evidence presented or facts that may be properly judicially noticed. This prohibition extends to information available in all media, including electronic. A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, that is, any communications to or from the judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending* or impending* proceeding, and shall make reasonable efforts to avoid such communications.

?

?II.??????????? ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canon 3B(7)(a)

?

Though a judge may have ex parte discussions with appropriate court personnel, a judge

may do so only on matters that are within the proper performance of that person’s duties. For

example, a bailiff may inform the judge of a threat to the judge or to the safety and security of

the courtroom, but may not tell the judge ex parte that a defendant was overheard making an

incriminating statement during a court recess. A clerk may point out to the judge technical

defect in a proposed sentence, but may not suggest to the judge that a defendant deserves a

certain sentence.

?

This canon prohibits a judge who is presiding over a case from discussing that case with another judge who has already been disqualified from hearing that case. A judge also must be careful not to talk to a judge whom the judge knows* would be disqualified from hearing the matter. – I believe that Judge Campbell and Judge Beyersdorf engaged in similar conduct following Judge Campbell's recusal from the prior case. Judge Beyersdorf, upon initially taking over, indicated that he had been briefed on the matter and proceeded to conduct himself in an excessively authoritarian manner from the outset.

?

III.??????????? Why is Tyranny still here in the United States? I thought that left when we gained independence in 1776.

?

Why is Judge Beyersdorf addressing a Family Law matter in Department 3, which does not adjudicate family law cases? This constitutes a loss of subject matter jurisdiction. It is evident that the hearings rely heavily on Juley Salkeld's recommendations, despite her demonstrated lack of legal competence. On February 2nd, she submitted fraudulent evidence to convince her friend, Judge Campbell, to grant Olivia Phillips full custody. Despite being informed of this fraud, Judge Beyersdorf did not return custody to me and instead issued an insulting order allowing me only four hours of supervised visitation per month. This limited contact would cause more psychological harm to my son than the existing damage inflicted by his mother, her attorney, and the court. Subjecting my son to such brief, supervised visits is cruel and constitutes an Eighth Amendment violation. The punishment does not even come close to it as I haven’t even committed a crime. Olivia was found guilty on two counts of PC 278.5 because there was no way she could get away with that, but her penalties were nearly nothing when she should have lost custody for that. Yet you take custody from the father for committing no crimes. Juley Salkeld and Olivia Phillips have been the only ones committing crime in this case, yet you continue to punish the father without grounds.

?

Pursuant to CCP § 170.1, I seek the recusal of Judge David Beyersdorf on the grounds of perceived prejudice and bias. His actions have demonstrated a clear bias, jeopardizing my right to a fair and impartial trial. In case FL17431, Judge Beyersdorf dismissed evidence of abuse submitted by me, Nathanael Smith, claiming it had already been adjudicated, despite the incidents occurring after Olivia Phillips' trial. This indicates that Judge Beyersdorf did not review the DVRO request thoroughly and lacks the necessary knowledge for this case. His actions appear retaliatory rather than judicial. I am simply asking the court to adhere to the laws and rules in place, yet it seems to be retaliating against me and using my son as a means of coercive control. Olivia Phillips' actions align with the definition of "abuse" outlined in the Judicial Council of California's guidebook on the Domestic Violence Prevention Act from October 2023.

?

At the April 2nd trial for the FC3044, Judge Beyersdorf claimed I did not rebut the 3044 criteria, despite my compliance with all seven required points, including taking a parenting class. He refused to provide a Statement of Decision, which forfeits his right to a response in appeal. I have documented proof of attending therapy since July, but I refuse to submit these records to the court due to the severe, unprovoked abuse I have experienced. Judge Beyersdorf's conflict of interest is further evidenced by his personal connection to Olivia Phillips, who claimed he made her dinner. This bias is reflected in his decision to grant full custody of my son to the proven abuser.

?

I also believe that Juley Salkeld submits different electronic evidence to the court than what is provided to the opposing party, constituting ex parte communication. I expect that these thumb drives have not been discarded or deleted, as doing so would violate California's Data Retention Policy, which mandates retention for 10 years after a hearing or trial. This includes surveillance footage from February 2nd, when felony perjury was committed in the courtroom by Juley Salkeld and Olivia Phillips and due process violations and perjury on the anti-abduction order signed by Judge Hallie Campbell. During the FC3044 trial, the court did not allow me to call witnesses or question anyone. Instead, Juley Salkeld made baseless accusations, such as claiming I used drugs based on pictures of a cell phone charger and a laptop pry tool. This highlights the importance of subject matter jurisdiction, ensuring judges with expertise in the relevant field provide fair and honest judgments. Juley Salkeld's reliance on fraudulent evidence against a Pro Per litigant underscores her lack of credibility as an attorney.

?

This situation is shameful and disgusting. Under Judicial Canon 3d (2), judges are mandated to report unethical behavior by attorneys. Despite submitting evidence of Juley Salkeld's fraud to Judge Beyersdorf, he took no action, failing to uphold the court's duty of accountability. This practice damages not only the child and father but also the principles of liberty in this country. Family Court does not have the authority to remove children from their homes without just cause. I have never been found unfit, and the grounds for my son's removal were illegal and contrary to well-established laws. The standard of proof for child removal is "clear and convincing" evidence, yet I was not afforded even the "preponderance of evidence" standard due to the fraudulent evidence used against me. I submitted a 56-page response, including Carter’s medical records, proving the drug test was a false positive. Judge Beyersdorf's actions appear to be part of a Title IV-D incentive scheme. Judge Beyersdorf allowed more fraudulent evidence to be submitted, including false financial information. He used a rubber stamp instead of signing the order, indicating an attempt to avoid accountability for unconstitutional judgments. He ordered child support higher than my mortgage payment without considering the child's needs or obtaining updated financial statements from the mother. This is an abuse of judicial power and a violation of Constitutional laws.

?

Judge Beyersdorf also received a letter of intent to sue before taking case FL17431, as he granted an EPO for filming in a public area in violation of the 1st amendment. This conflict-of-interest stems from his connection to Juley Salkeld, who attends his parties. He should have recused himself from the case. I feel compelled to disclose that this and all related correspondence will be sent to the Attorney General's office as part of the federal lawsuit and to the Grand Jury. The Tuolumne County Superior Court's behavior is unacceptable, akin to that of a Mafia. I have never been arrested or committed any wrongdoing; this was an unprovoked attack on an innocent father. The court's actions are disgraceful and reflect poorly on the judicial system. This recusal will be posted on social media for my protection and transparency.

?

IV.??????????? Laws and Case Law to Support my Claims, and removing immunity

?

·???????? Constitution Supreme Clause Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution (This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; . . .. shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.)

?

·???????? When a judge acts intentionally and knowingly to deprive a person of his constitutional rights, he exercises no discretion or individual judgment; he acts no longer as a judge, but as a " minister" of his own prejudices. [PIERSON v. RAY 386 U.S. 547, 568]

?

·???????? A judge is liable for injury caused by a ministerial act; to have immunity the judge must be performing a judicial function. See, e. g., Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339; 2 Harper & James, The Law of Torts 1642-1643 (1956). The presence of malice and the intention to deprive a person of his civil rights is wholly incompatible with the judicial function.

?

·???????? "Jurisdiction, although once obtained, may be lost, and in such case, proceedings cannot be validly continued beyond the point at which jurisdiction ceases". Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Co., 283 U.S. 643, 75 L.Ed. 1324, 51 S.Ct. 587.

·???????? For the purposes of review, it has been said that clear violations of laws on reaching the result, such as acting without evidence when evidence is required, or deciding contrary to all the evidence, are just as much jurisdictional error as is the failure to take proper steps to acquire jurisdiction at the beginning of the proceeding. Borgnis v. Falk Co., 133 N.W. 209.

?

·???????? "No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction". Stanard v. Olesen, 74 S.Ct. 768.

?

·???????? "Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proved." Hagans v. Levine, 415 U.S. 533, n. 3.

?

·???????? "Mere fact that parties stipulated to jurisdiction does not automatically vest authority in the court to adjudicate all issues presented, for subject matter jurisdiction cannot be assumed by the court, nor can it be waived by parties." Bush v. U.S. 703 F.2d 491 (1983); Jackson v. Seaboard Coast Line, 678 F.2d 992 (1982), quoting F.R.Civ.P. Rule 12 (h) (3).

?

·???????? Without jurisdiction, the acts or judgments of the court are void and open to collateral attack. McLean v. Jephson, 123 N.Y. 142, 25 N.E. 409.

?

·???????? Under Federal law, which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is "without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers." Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828).

?

·???????? The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) stated that, "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he "comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States."

?

·???????? The Court in Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F.Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962) held that "not every action by a judge is in exercise of his judicial function. ... it is not a judicial function for a judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the courthouse."

?

·???????? The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Circuit Court of Cook County is a criminal enterprise. U.S. v. Murphy, 768F.2d 1518, 1531 (7th Cir. 1985).? Since judges who do not report the criminal activities of other judges become principals in the criminal activity, 18 U.S.C. Section 1, and since no judges have reported the criminal activity of the judges who have been convicted, the other judges are as guilty as the convicted judges. This applies to not reporting Attorneys for their crimes either. Miss Campbell and Mr. Beyersdorf…

?

I have extensive case law demonstrating that most, if not all, of the orders in question are void, and that immunity could be removed due to a conspiracy to deprive rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241. This conspiracy targeted an innocent father, simply trying to enjoy his life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with his only child, Carter Nathaniel Smith.

?

The actions of a mother, an attorney, a commissioner, and two judges, who unprovokedly targeted him with frivolous accusations and unjustly removed his child, constitute a grave injustice. This is precisely why the Constitution exists—to safeguard individuals from such abuses of power. Those who swear an oath to uphold the Constitution must recognize the gravity of that commitment. For many, it may seem like a mere formality, but for those it is meant to protect, it is a vital safeguard against the resurgence of tyranny. It is imperative that those who take this oath fully understand and honor the responsibilities it entails.

?

?

? V.??????????? Conclusion

?

??????????? In the interest of justice and maintaining public trust, it is strongly believed that Judge David Beyersdorf should recuse himself from this case. The circumstances surrounding perceived biases, conflicts of interest, and instances of judicial misconduct raise serious concerns about his ability to impartially adjudicate any case. Considering the above, it is respectfully requested that Judge David Beyersdorf be disqualified from presiding over all matters related to this case. It is hoped that the court will uphold its oath, as ignoring constitutional rights has caused significant issues in numerous cases within Tuolumne County.

?

The actions of many judges have contributed to the county's unfortunate reputation as a place where visitors risk legal entanglements, undermining the foundational American principles of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." If the goal is to emulate the restrictive legal environment of the Republic of China, then the current trajectory is regrettably effective.

18 U.S. Code § 2382 - Misprision of treason - states: "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both."

?

These concerns represent only a fraction of the alleged illegal activities occurring within the Tuolumne County Superior Court. Numerous parents and citizens have shared their troubling experiences over the years, suggesting a widespread issue. As a result, Tuolumne County may soon face a surge of civil lawsuits. Accountability can be deferred only for so long before it inevitably must be addressed. As I have previously stated to Juley Salkeld and now reiterate to the court, my actions are driven by the profound love of a father for his only son. While efforts may be made to hinder my pursuit of justice, the momentum of accountability is unstoppable, driven by years of systemic abuse. Adhering to the Constitution is the only viable path to prevent further injustices. Rather than justifying punitive actions against an innocent person, it is imperative to report actual misconduct, as mandated by Canon 3D (2).

?

Therefore, I expect that Juley Salkeld and Olivia Phillips be held accountable for their actions against the Constitution and this country. Furthermore, I request that my son be returned to the care of his father, Nathanael Smith, who is demonstrably the healthier and more capable parent.

DATED: June 16, 2024

Nathanael Smith

Loving Father of Carter and Defender of his Rights

President – Fatherly Freedom Inc 501c4

[email protected]

Honorably Pro-Per