CASE NO.

____________________________

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTICT COURT

SOUTHTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
BRAD TERRENCE JORDAN
Petitioner

VS.

TEXAS OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

NOTICE DEMAND TO VACATE SUPPORT ORDER

FEDERAL RULE 60 (B) (4) DEMAND JUDICIAL REVIEW.
THIS DEMAND TO VACATE SUPPORT ORDER IS SUBMITTED BY BRAD
TERRENCE JORDAN INTO THIS COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TAXAS, DIVISION OF HOUSTON ON 09-
06-2017 NOTICE TO THE COURT DEMANDING REMEDY TO VACATE
SUPPORT ORDERS CREATED WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW BY AN
ADJUDICATOR WHO IS NOT UNBIASED NOR IMPARTIAL AS REQUIRED
BY 5TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS.
THE FACT FINDER WHO CREATED THIS VOID SUPPORT ORDER HAD A
PECUNIARY INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME AND WAS NOT

1
Neither UNBIASED NOR IMPARTIAL THEREFORE THE SUPPORT ORDER IS
VOID.

THE FACT FINDER’S SALARY IS PAID PARTIALLY OR WHOLLY FROM

TITLE IV-D FEDERAL FUNDS RECEIVED FROM THE FACT FINDER’S

DECISION THAT EASTABLISHED SUPPORT ORDER UNDER 42 USC

SECTION 654 (3) A SEPARATE ORGANIZATION INDEPENDENT FROM THE

COURTS REQUIRING AN IMPARTIAL JUDICIAL REVIEW AND

CONFIRMATION BEFORE A PENNY CAN BE DEPRIVED UNDER THE 14TH

AMENDMENT. (SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CAPERTON ET

AL. v. A.T MASSEY COAL CO., INC., ET AL., Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510,

5231

WITHOUT AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL REVIEW FROM A JUDICIAL

OFFICER WHOSE SALARY IS NOT PAID FROM FEDERAL FUNDS RECEIVED

FROM TITTLE IV-D ESTABLISHED SUPPORT ORDER THAT IS CAUSING

DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY AT THIS VERY MOMENT.

COMES NOW, ONE OF THE PEOPLE BRAD TERRENCE JORDAN, AN

AMERICAN CITIZEN STANDING UPON INALIENABLE RIGHTS

GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES CONTITUTION BILL OF RIGHTS.

2
MY STANDING UPON THE US CONSTITUTION AND EXPECTATION OF

THIS COURT AND DEFEND THESE GUARANTEES SHALL NOT CAUSE THIS

COURT OR ANY OF ITS EMPLOYEES TO CALL BRAD TERRENCE JORDAN A

“SOVEREIGN CITIZEN” OR “CONSTITUTIONALIST”

THE JUDICIAL OFFICER OR QUASI JUDICIAL OFFICIAL ADDRESSING THIS

DEMAND TO VACATE MUST ADDRESS THIS DEMAND TO VACATE NOTICE

WHILE IN PURSUANCE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND

BILLL RIGHTS PURSUANCE ARTICLE 6 SECTION 2 THE SUPREMACY

CLAUSE AND IN PURSUANCE OF OATH FILED UNDER PUBLIC OFFICERS

LAW. ANY JUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS NOT IN PURSUANCE

OF THE US CONTITUTION BILL OF RIGHTS IS VOID PURSUANT SUPREME

COURT MATTERE MARBURY V MAISON AND IT IS THE DUTY OF THE

COURT TO ACT OBSTA PRINCIPIIS.

THE INTENTION OF THIS LENGHTY DEMAND TO VACATE PURSUANT

FEDERAL RULE 60(B)(4) IS TO PROVE SUPPORT ORDERS FOR CHILD

3
SUPPORT WERE MADE WITHOUT ANY SEMLANCE OF DUE PROCESS AND

PROVING THE PROCEDURES UNDER 45 CFR 303.11 WERE NOT

FOLLOWED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, WHEREBY WHEN DUE PROCESS

OF ANY KIND IS NOT FOLLOWED THE CONCLUSIONS MADE ARE VOID

OR DEFECTIVE AND UNENFORCEABLE.

FURTHER, RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES

CONSTITUTIONAL BILL OF RIGHTS CANNOT BE DEPRIVED BY ANY STATE

CHILD SUPPORT LAWS OR STATUTES AS GUARANTEED UNDER 4TH

AMENDMENT. THE COURTS HAVE COMMONLY HELD THAT RIGHTS

GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, THE LAW OF THE

LAND CANNOT BE DEPRIEVED BY STATE STATUTES (“That statutes which

would deprive a citizen to the course and usage of common law, would not

be the law of the land.” Hoke v. Henderson, 15 NC 1- 1833)

THE ESTABLISHMENT AND AGREESSIVE ENFOREMENT OF SUPPORT

ORDERS WERE USED TO DEPRIVE PERSONAL

PROPERTY FROM ONE OF THE PEOPLE BRAD TERRENCE JORDAN.

WHEREBY, IT IS THE DUTY OF THIS COURT UNDER THE UNITED

CONSTITUTION BILL OF RIGHTS TO IMPARTIALLY PROTECT AGAINST

4
CONTITUTIONAL ENCROACHMENTS AND PROVED IMPARTIAL EQUAL

PROTECTION.

THE TITLE IV-D FUNDS RECEIVED FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND

ENFORCEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT RENDERS ALL PARTIES INVOLVED IN

THE OUTCOME AS NOT IMPARTIAL ADJUDICATORS.

THE TITLE IV-D FUNDS ARE DEPOSITED INTO STATE TREASURY AN IS

USED TO PAY SALARIES OF ALL EMPLOYEES INVOLVED IN THE

ESTABLISHMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT, THEREFORE PRESIDING OFFICER

HAS A PECUNIARY INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME AND CANNOT REMAIN

IMPARTIAL. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CAPERTON ET AL.

v. A.T.MASSEY COAL CO., INC.,ET AL. Tumey v. Ohio,273 U.S. 510,523.

IT IS THE DUTY OF THIS COURT AND THE PUBLIC OFFICER EXAMINING

THE FACTS EVIDENCE TO IMMEDIATELY REMEDY THE HARMS CAUSED

BY VOID SUPPORT ORDERS CLEARLY MADE IN VIOLATION OF DUE

PROCESS, THEREFORE THIS COURT HAS NO DISCRETION PURSUANT

FEDERAL RULE 60(B) AND ITS MANDATE TO IMPARTIALLY PROVED

EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS AND MUST VACATE ALL SUPPORT

ORDERS AGAINST BRAD TERRENCE JORDAN MADE IN VIOLATION OF

DUE PROCESS AB INITIO FROM THE BEGINNING (United States v.

5
Indoor Cultivation Equip. from High Tech Indoor Garden Supply,

55 F.3d 1311, 1317 (7th Cir.1995).

DECLARATION OF FACTS

1. Comes now, one of the people BRAD TERRENCE JORDAN

demanding to vacate void judgments created in violation of due

process are alleging this man of his right to ownership of his

property. Although relief under Rule 60(b) is subject to review for

abuse of discretion , if a ‘judgment is void , it is a per se abuse of

discretion for a district court to delay a movant’s motion to vacate

the judgment.” United States v. Indoor Cultivation Equip. from High

Tech Indoor Garden Supply, 55 F.3d 1311, 1317 (7th Cir.995). A

judgment is void and should be vacated pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) if

“the court that rendered the judgment acted in a manner

inconsistent With due process of law”

2. One of the BRAND TERRENCE JORDAN contends that his right to

due process, a constitutional guaranteed was deprived and the

United States Supreme Court has held that judgments/orders made

without or collaterally. This Court/Title IV-D Tribunal must provide

evidence of jurisdiction to order support in violation of due process

as guaranteed by 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th , and 14th amendments as required

6
 by due process of law. “ Although relief under rule 60(b) is subject

to review for abuse of discretion, if a “ judgment is void, it is a per

se abuse of discretion for a district court to deny a movant’s motion

to vacate the judgment.” United States V. Indoor Cultivation Equip.

from High Tech Indoor Garden Supply, 55 F.3d 1311, 1317 (7th Cir.

1995). A judgment is void and should be vacated pursuant to Rule

60(b)(4) if “the court that rendered the judgment acted in a manner

inconsistent with due process of law.

3. BRAD TERRENCE JORDAN gives notice that he, having never dealt

with the family court system or any court of equity to his knowledge

previous to this time, claim an affirmative defense alleging that he

did have a good faith reliance on a misleading

Representation asserted by this court and that he now has an injury and a

detrimental change in his position directly resulting from that reliance.

4. At no time knowingly waived his right to a trial by jury (US

Constitutional Article 3 Section 2 and Amendment 7) the freedom

from involuntary servitude, (US Constitution Amendment 13 Section

1.) and the right to be free from incarceration for failure to pay a

debt. This practice concerning civil matters was banned under

7
 federal law in 1833 and banned by the US Constitution 14th

Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court in a 1983 ruling

which stated that incarcerating indigent debtors was unconstitutional

under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection clause and

under no circumstances can this court create a court ordered money

judgment called a support order rendering BRAD TERRENCE

JORDAN into poverty by the court’s claim that support must be paid

and paid through a state run child support enforcement agency for

which the state will receive up to 66% federal funds, another

violation of taking private property and using for public use without

compensation.

5. BRAD TERRENCE JORDAN at no time waived his right to an impartial

equal protection of law under the 5th and 14th amendments.

6. Therefore this court has no discretion but to vacate support orders

created in violation of due process. Although relief under Rule 60(b)

is subject to review for abuse of discretion, if a “judgment is void, it

is a per se abuse of discretion for a district court to deny a movant’s

motion to vacate the judgment” United States v. Indoor Cultivation

Euip. from High Tech Indoor Garden Supply, 55 F.3d 1311,1317 (7th
8
 Cir. 1995). A judgment is void and should be vacated pursuant to

Rule 60(b)(4) if “the court that rendered the judgment acted in a

manner inconsistent with due process of law”

7. This demand to vacate void judgments comes with no time

restraints for a void judgment, the courts have held, an be attacked

at any time, in any court. (Ex parte Siebold, 100

U.S.371,376,377:”… The validity of the judgment is assailed on the

ground that the acts of Congress under which the indictments were

found are unconstitutional. If this position is well taken, it affects the

foundation of the whole proceedings. An unconstitutional law is

void, and is as no law. An offence created by it is not a crime. A

conviction under it is not merely erroneous, but is illegal and void ,

and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment. It is true, if no writ of

Case 4:17-cv-02685 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/17 Page 10 of 29

error lies, the judgment may be final, in the sense that there may no

means of reversing it.

But personal liberty is of so great moment in the eye of the law that the

judgment of an inferior court affecting it is not deemed so conclusive but

that… the question of the court’s authority to try and imprison the party

may be reviewed on habeas corpus…”

9
8. It is the duty of the courts to be impartial and provide equal

protection of law an cannot rely upon presumptions in lieu of facts

and evidence. “It may be that it… is the obnoxious thing in its

mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and

unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way; namely,

by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of

procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that

constitutional provisions for the security of person and property

should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction

deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual

depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in

substance. It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the

constitutional rights of the citizens, and against any stealthy

Case 4:17-cv-02685 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/17 Page 11 of 29

encroachments thereon. There motor should be obsta principiis,” Mr

Justice Brewer, dissenting, quoting Mr. Justice Bradley in Boyd v.

United States, 116 U.S. 616, 29 L.Ed. 746,6 Sup.Ct.Rep. 524 Hale v.

Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)

9. This affidavit is demanding to view the evidence introduced into

court during evidentiary hearing resulting in granting this judicial or

administrative entity the jurisdiction to create support orders

10
 ordering a third party Child Support Enforcement Agency to seize

the personal property of BRAD TERRENCE JORDAN, to suspend

driving privileges, to suspend travel by freezing passport and to

freeze bank accounts.

10. Without evidence, all action taken upon one of the people

BRAD TERRENCE JORDAN, are and were unlawful requiring this

judicial actor and court to issue order ordering child support

enforcement to cease and desist and order the immediate

restoration of right and property. Definition of inalienable (adj.) Look

up inalienable at Dictionary.com “ that cannot be given up,”

PRESUMPTIONS ARE NOT FACTS AND PROPER DUE PROCESS OF LAW IS

TO REPLCE ALL PRESUMPTIONS WITH FACTS SUPORTED BY EVIDENCE.

Case 4:17-cv-02685 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/17 Page 12 of 29

1. One of the people BRAND TERRENCE JORDAN hereby informs this

court that he rebuts all conclusion presumptions therefore this court

must not support use of presumptions

Without the clarification of evidence to support conclusive presumptions,

such as obligor. An obligor is obligated to a contract, and proof of consent

is required before calling one of the people BRAD TERRENCE JORDAN and

11
obligor by providing proof he entered into a contract to pay child support

through child support collection services. Obligor (n) Look up obligor

at Dictionary.com “ person who binds himself to another by

contract,”

2. The following child support terms are conclusive presumptions

encroaching upon my right to due process and equal protection of

law.

3. Obligor: The person obligated to pay child support (also referred to

as a noncustodial parents or NCP)

4. Non- custodial parent: the parent who does not have primary

care, custody, or control of the child, and who may have an

obligation to pay child support. Also referred to as the obligor.

Case 4:17-cv-02685 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/17 Page 13 of 29

5. Biological Father: The man who provided the parental genes of a

child. The biological father is sometimes referred to as the natural

father.

6. Payor: Person who make a payment, usually a noncustodial parent

or someone acting on their behalf.

12
 All Conclusive Presumptions by this entity or Agent

addressing this Judicial Review and Demand for Dismissal

and Discharge must be supported by Clarification of

Evidence to Support Presumptions or the Presumptions will

prejudice or Injure the Protected Rights of the undersigned,

a Violation of Due process of Law that Results in a Void

Judgment for failure to follow due process guaranteed by

5th and 14th amendments.

1. The presumptions in this matter requiring evidence that due process

of law and equal of protection of law were provided and

presumption the undersigned is obligated by contract under Title IV-

A to pay child support to Title IV-D Child Support Collection

contractor.

Case 4:17-cv-02685 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/17 Page 14 of 29

2. These presumptions must be proven by facts and evidence or this

demand for dismissal and discharge must be granted immediately

without terms.

Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, defines “presumption”

as follows:

13
Presumption: An inference in favor of a particular fact. A presumption is

a rule of law, statutory or judicial, by which finding of a basic fact gives

rise to existence of presumed fact, until presumption is rebutted. Van

Wart v. Cook, Okl.App., 557 P.2d. 1161,1163. A legal device which

operates in the absence of other proof to require that certain inferences be

drawn from the available evidence. Port Terminal & Warehousing Co.v

John S. James 40 Co., D.C.Ga., 92 F.R.D.100,106.

A “presumption” is not evidence, but simply a brief akin to a

religion. A presumption is an assumption of fact that the law requires to

be made from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise

established in the action. A presumption is not evidence. A presumption is

either (a) a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence or (b)

a presumption affecting the burden of proof. Calif. Evid. Code, $600.

Case 4:17-cv-02685 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/17 Page 15 of 29

In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise provided for by

Act of Congress or by the Federal Rule of Evidence, a presumption

imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of

going forward

14
With evidence to rebut or meet the presumption , but does not

shift to such party the burden of proof in the sense of the risk of

non-persuasion which remains throughout the trial upon the

party on whom it was originally cast. Federal Evidence Rule 301.

See also disputable presumption; inference; Juris et de jure; Presumptive

evidence; prima facie; Raise a presumption.

Presumptions may not be imposed if they injure rights protected by the

Constitution: A conclusive presumption may be defeated its application

would impair a party’s constitutionally- protected liberty of property

interests.

In such cases, conclusive presumptions have been held to violate a party’s

due process and equal protection rights. (Vlandis v.Kline (1973) 412 U.S

441,449,93 S.Ct. 22030, 2235; Cleveland Bed. Of Ed. v. LaFleur (1974)

Case 4:17-cv-02685 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/17 Page 16 of 29

414 U.S 632, 639-640, 94 S.Ct. 1208, 1215- presumption under Illinois law

that unmarried fathers are unfit violates process.

To implement the presumption, courts must be alert to factors that may

undermine the fairness of the fact-finding process. In the administration of

15
criminal justice, courts must carefully guard against dilution of the principle

that guilt is to be established by probative evidence and beyond a

reasonable Doubt. In re Winship, 397 US.358, 364 (1970). {425 U.S.

501,504}{Delo v. Lashely, 507 U.S. 272 (1993)}

I declare that a full discharge and dismissal for the unconstitutional

procedures violating due process used in the efforts to collect an

unsubstantiated debt for an unsubstantiated loan for public assistance

under Title IV-A of the Social Security Act.

All state child support proceeding must be in accordance with

federal child support enforcement under 45 CFR 303.101,

therefore, I declare that a full discharge and dismissal for

violation of due process for the presiding officer’s failure to follow

guidelines under 45 CFR 303.101 Expedited Processes.

Case 4:17-cv-02685 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/17 Page 17 of 29

1. 45 C.F.R. & 303.101 (d)(1) Taken testimony and establishing a

record. Whereas One of the people denies being afforded due

process and equal protection of law as required by 14th amendment,

therefore these child support terms are presumptions insinuating

16
 guilt, which the facts and lack of physical evidence proves these

presumptive terms are false therefore must be removed from all

records claiming a Title IV-A Child support loan was made to One of

the people BRAD TERRENCE JORDAN

2. 45 C.F.R. & 303.101(c) (2) Parties must be afforded due

process; Whereas I understand it, the State of TEXAS has seized

BRAD TERRENE JORDAN property by denying my 14th amendment

right du process and equal protection of law and my property has

been seized without a warrant in violation of the 4th amendment.

EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL

RIGHTS DIVISION THIS COURT HAS A PECULIARY

INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF SUPORT ORDERS WHEREBY

A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION

OF LAW UNDER 14TH AMENDMENT

Case 4:17-cv-02685 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/17 Page 18 of 29

The United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Memo

dated Marh 16,2016, stated the following:

1. “Court must safeguard against unconstitutional practices by court

staff and private contractors.”

17
 2. “Court must not use arrest warrant or license suspensions as a

means of coercing the payment of court debt when individuals

have not been afforded constitutionally adequate procedural

protections.”

Family Court Division, Circuit Courts and Child support enforcement

contractors receives federal funds 42 USC section 654 by states

Creating a separate organization for child support enforcement and

Title IV-D 42 USC sec 658a for child support enforcement incentives,

therefore has a pecuniary interest in the outcome of support

proceedings, and this is a serious violation of the due process

clauses of the 14th amendment under ward v Monreoiville. Ward v.

Village of Monroeville, Ohio, 409 U.S. 57,61-62 (1972).

“In Court systems receiving federal funds, these practices may also

violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. &

2000d, when they unnecessarily impose disparate harm on the

Case 4:17-cv-02685 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/17 Page 19 of 29

basis of race or national origin”. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL

RIGHTS DIVISION MEMO DATED MARCH 16,2016.

18
 Can this court support the practices by child support enforcement as

constitutional? If it cannot, it must immediately dismiss and

discharge with prejudice.

1. The due process and equal protection principles of the

Fourteenth Amendment prohibit “punishing a person for his

poverty.” Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660,671 (1983).

2. The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this principle in Turner v.

Rogers, 131 S. Ct. 2507 (2011), holding that a court violates due

process when it finds a parent in civil contempt and jails the

parent for failure to pay child support, without first inquiring into

the parent’s ability to pay Id. At 2518-19.

3. To comply with this constitutional guarantee, state local courts

must inquires as to a person’s ability to pay prior to imposing

incarceration for nonpayment.

Courts must not condition access to a judicial hearing on

prepayment of fines or fees.

Case 4:17-cv-02685 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/17 Page 20 of 29

“State and local courts deprive indigent defendants of due process

equal protection if they condition access to the courts on payment of

19
 fines or fees. See Boddies v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 374

(1971) (holding that due process bars states from conditioning

access to compulsory judicial process on the payment of court fees

by those unable to pay); see also Tucker v. City of Montgomery

Bd. Of Comm’rs 410 F. Supp. 494,502 (M.D. Ala 1976)

(holding that the conditioning of an appeal on payment of a bond

violates indigent prisoner’s equal protection right and “has no place

in our heritage of Equal Justice Under Law’ ” (citing Burns v.Ohio

360 U.S. 252, 258 (1959)).”

Suspending of driver’s license is an unconstitutional administrative

procedure by depriving one of the people BRAD TERRENCE JORDAN

Of his right to travel and hindering his livelihood and forcing further into

poverty.

Court must not use arrest warrants or license suspensions as a

mean of coercing the payment of court debt when individuals

Case 4:17-cv-02685 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/17 Page 21 of 29

have not been afforded constitutionally adequate procedural

protections.

20
“In many jurisdictions, courts are also authorized- and in some cases

required- to initiate the suspension of a defendant’s driver’s license to

compel the payment of outstanding court debts. If a defendant’s driver’s

license is suspended because of failure to pay a fine, such a suspension

may be unlawful if the defendant was deprive of his due process right to

establish inability to pay. See Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S.535,539 (1971)

(holding that driver’s licenses “ may become essential in the pursuit of a

livelihood” and thus “are not to be taken away without that procedural

due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment”) cf. Dixon

v.Love,431 U.S. 105, 113-14 (1977) (upholding revocation of driver’s

license after conviction based in part on the due process provided in the

underlying criminal proceedings); Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U,S. 1, 13-

17 (1979) (upholding suspension of driver’s license after arrest for

driving under the influence and refusal to take a breath- analysis test,

because suspension “substantially served” the government’s interest in

public safety and was based on “ objective facts either within the personal

knowledge of an impartial government official or readily ascertained by

Case 4:17-cv-02685 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/17 Page 22 of 29

him,” making risk of erroneous deprivation low). Accordingly, automatic

license suspensions premised on determinations that fail to comport with

21
Bearden and its progeny may violate due process.” (DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION MEMO DATED MARCH 6,2016)

Courts must safeguard against unconstitutional practices by court

staff and private contractors.

Under 42 USC section 658a Title IV-d Chile Support Enforcement incentive

payments results in the child support enforcement contractor having a

significant pecuniary interest in the outcome, and as in this matter, will use

expedited processes to speed up the process so the state of TEXAS can

receive these federal funds at the cost of one of the people BRAND

TERRENCE JORDAN rights to due process and equal protection of laws

guaranteed under the 14th amendment. This court was created to provide

remedy and equal protection of laws pursuant the symbol of a blindfolded

woman holding a scale, therefore, it is required that this court must guard

against these encroachments.

“Additional due process concerns arise when these designed have a direct

pecuniary interest in the management or outcome of a case-for example

Case 4:17-cv-02685 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/17 Page 23 of 29

when a jurisdiction employs private, for –profit companies to supervise

probationers. In many such jurisdictions, probation companies are

22
authorized not only to collect court fines, but also to impose an array of

discretionary surcharges (such a supervision fees, late fees, drug testing

fees, etc.) to be paid to the company itself rather than to the court. Thus,

the probation company that decides what services or sanctions to impose

stands to profit from those very decisions. The Supreme Courts has

“always been sensitive to the possibility that important actors in the

criminal justice system may be influenced by factors that threaten to

compromise the performance of their duty.” Young v. U.S .ex rel.

Vuitton et fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787,810 (1987). It has expressly

prohibited arrangements in which the judge might have a pecuniary

interest direct or indirect, in the outcome of a case. See Tumey v. Ohio,

273 U.S. 510, 523 (1927) (invalidating conviction on the basis of $12

fee paid to the mayor only upon conviction in mayor’s court); Ward v.

Village of Monroeville, Ohio, 409 U.S. 57,61-62 (1972) (extending

reasoning of Tumey to cases in which the judge has a clear but not direct

interest). It has applied the same reasoning to prosecutors, holding that

the appointment of a private prosecutor with a pecuniary interest in the

Case 4:17-cv-02685 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/17 Page 24 of 29

outcome of a case constitutes fundamental error because it “undermines

confidence in the integrity of the criminal proceeding.” Young,

23
481 U.S. at 811-14. The appointment of a private problem company with a

pecuniary interest in the outcome of its cases raises similarly fundamental

concerns about fairness and due process” (DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION MEMO DATED MARCH 16,2016

THE FOLLOWING CAN BE FOUND IN CHAPTER 6 essential for Attorneys in

child Enforcement EXPEDITED JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE

PROCESSES

Constitutionality

The movement from judicial processes for CSE to administrative processes

has raised issues of constitutionality. These are generally issues of

separation of powers and due process.

Separation of Powers The separation of powers issue raised by the

advent of administrative processes is whether the legislature can delegate

a traditionally judicial area to the Executive branch of Government. The

answer depends, in large part, on State constitutional law. Generally, State

legislatures have broad authority to determine the right and responsibilities

of citizens and to establish process for enforcing those responsibilities.

Case 4:17-cv-02685 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/17 Page 25 of 29

PRWORA did not mandate the administrative establishment of child

support orders, leaving the decision as to whether to remove this function

24
form the Judicial branch and place it with the Executive branch up to the

States.

The Supreme Court of Minnesota recently held the administrative child

support process created by its legislature to be a violation of the

separation of powers doctrine.

Minnesota’s administrative process included procedures for uncontested

and contested cases. In uncontested cases, the agency prepared a

proposed support order for the parties’ signature and the administrative

law judge’s ratification. If either party contested the proposed order, the

case moved into the contested process. in the contested process, the case

was presented by a child support officer (CSO) who was not an attorney.

The administrative law judge (ALJ) had judicial powers, including the

ability to modify judicial child support orders. While the ALJ could not

preside over contested paternity and contempt proceedings, he or she

could grant stipulated contempt orders and uncontested paternity orders.

While recognizing the importance of streaming child support mechanisms,

the Minnesota Supreme Court stated it could not ignore separation of

powers constraints. It concluded that the administrative structure violated

Case 4:17-cv-02685 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/17 Page 26 of 29

separation of powers for three reasons. First, the administrative process

infringed on the district court’s jurisdiction in contravention to the

25
Minnesota Constitution. Second, ALJ jurisdiction was not inferior to the

district court’s jurisdiction, as mandated by the Minnesota Constitution.

Third, the administrative process empowered non- attorney to engage in

the practice of law, infringing on the court’s exclusive power to supervise

the practice of law. The decision was stayed for several months to give the

legislature time to amend Minnesota laws in accord with the decision.

Due process

The question of due process raises a fundamental Federal constitutional

protection. The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution provides

that a person “shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due

process of law.” The U.S Supreme Court has established some very

important criteria for due process, falling into three general areas:

Challenges have arisen to the manner in which administrative process is

invoked. An illustrative case is Holmberg v. Holmberg, in which the

Minnesota Supreme Court held that the State’s administrative process for

child support orders was unconstitutional. The legislature had put place a

system under uncontested child support cases could be heard by

administrative law judges, who had the power to set child support

awards, and to modify awards previously set by circuit courts. The orders

Case 4:17-cv-02685 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/17 Page 27 of 29

26
were directly appealable to the appellate court, without review by the

district court. The Minnesota Supreme court held that such a system is

unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers doctrine and

Usurps the original jurisdiction of the district court. On more of the

constitutional safeguards has been violated in the expedited processes for

assessment of support and issuance of an alleged support order alleging a

debt exists for a loan under Title IV-A of Social Security Act. The court

must provide proof of a money judgment entered with county clerk

pursuant All Writs Section proving that all writs coming from a court within

the U.S must have clerk’s signature pursuant 28 USC sections 1691 or it is

void. The Court hearing this demand for dismissal and discharge has

judicial responsibility to ensure the equal protection clause provided the

14th amendment protecting against any state child support laws and

administrative procedures which shall violate the following:

1. The 14th amendment protection from state laws and administrative

procedures that shall violate inalienable rights guaranteed in the

state and US Bill of Rights. A fundamental, constitutional guarantee

that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given

notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the

government acts to take away one’s life, liberty, or property. Also, a

Case 4:17-cv-02685 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/17 Page 28 of 29

27
 constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable,

Arbitrary or capricious.

2. 7th Amendment Right to a trial by jury in controversies of $20 or

more

3. The threat of incarceration must allow for right to counsel in

accordance with 6th amendment.

4. The 4th amendment guarantee of freedom from seizure of property

unless by due process of law by a warrant with oath or affirmation.

The seizure of property were violated and this court must guard

against violation. All courts are created for remedy and this

declaration and demand for remedy by issuance of dismissal and

discharge with prejudice.

CLARIFICATION OF EVIDENCE IS WHAT GIVES THE

ADJUDICATOR AND THE COURT JURISDICTION TO

SUPPORT A DISMISSAL/ DENIAL OF THIS NOTICE TO THE

COURT

Please refrain from dismissing this notice of Demand with a single

line statement “dismissed/ denial for lack of merit” without first

providing a clear clarification of evidence introduced by the petition

of the support proceedings. The justification of a Dismissal/ Denial

Case 4:17-cv-02685 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/17 Page 29 of 29

28
must be based upon evidence, and clarification of this evidence by

clarifying where and when such proof was introduced along with the

exhibit number or letter affixed

to the exhibits marked as evidence, which led the fact finder to establish

the support orders.

One of the people BRAD TERRENCE JORDAN confident this court will

immediately dismiss and discharge this matter with prejudice. Thank you.

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned hereby affirms under threat of perjury that the

aforementioned affidavit is true and the information in italics were

accumulated from I45 CFR 303.101, Chapter 6 Essential for

Attorneys health and Human Services and United States

Department of Justice Civil Rights Division dated March 16,2016.

_____________________

Affiant Name and Signature of

SWORN to and subscribed before me, this the ____ day of _______

_________________________

NOTARY PUBLIC

My Commission Expires

____________________

29
 No._________________________________

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTICT COURT

SOUTHTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
BRAD TERRENCE JORDAN

Plaintiff

VS.

TEXAS OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendant

AFFIDAVIT FOR TEMPORARY INJUCTION

PERSONALLY appeared before me, the undersigned authority in and

for said county and state, BRAD TERRENCE JORDAN, who, having

been being first duty sworn by the undersigned Notary Public,

deposes and says:

1. I am the Plaintiff in the above –entitled action, and made this

Affidavit in support of my Motion for issuance of a Temporary

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction without notice to

TEXAS OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, the Defendant in this

action.

2. This action seeks to restrain and enjoin Defendant from causing

deprivation of the plaintiff’s property.

3. Unless I am granted the requested injunction relief, I will suffer

irreparable harm, in that the Defendant The Texas Office of
Attorney General has seized the plaintiff property by denying my
30
14th amendment right to due process and equal protection of the
law and my property has been seized without a warrant in
violation of the 4yth amendment
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
____________ for which I have has no adequate remedy at law

31