EXPOSING 1ST CIRCUIT, Family, FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT RICO/FARA/CONSPIRACY
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT REFERRALS will submit AFTER DOJ GETS REPLACED; OTHERWISE IT WOULD OF NEVER GOT PROSECUTED & THROWN OUT!
OPERATION "KLEENHOUS"
MISSION:
We were founded out of necessity. SohAUDIT.org is dedicated to exposing systematic corruption within the First Circuit, Family Court, specifically a RICO and racketeering operation. Our investigation and audit have identified several key actors involved in this corruption. These individuals hold administrative and investigative positions contracted by the court and specific agencies, allowing them to manipulate narratives and outcomes. The courts, law firms, lawyers, and associates of these bad actors are colluding to create a system where they can incriminate parents by fabricating cases of neglect or abuse. This enables the First Circuit Family Court to remove children from their parents or the less favored parent, effectively trafficking them.
This is a common scenario in family court, where stories abound of how certain parents, despite lacking credibility, manage to win cases. A significant factor is whether the plaintiff or defendant has a more effective legal representation, such as a large law firm rather than a solo practitioner. Court rules often favor the state or city and county agencies when cases involve the State of Hawaii versus individual or married parents.
The "de facto" family court and associated agencies are alleged to operate a racketeering enterprise under the guise of the Privacy Act of 1974, potentially violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). This operation is claimed to exploit legal protections for personal gain, undermining the integrity of the judicial system. The allegations suggest that these entities may be involved in corrupt practices, such as manipulating court orders and misusing federal funds, all while shielding themselves from accountability through the misuse of privacy laws.
IF YOU HAD A JUDGE OR ATTORNEY NAMED, CALLED BRYANT ZANE OR J ALBERTO MONTALBANO, JUAN ALBERTO MONTALBANO, JUDGE PARK, AS AN ATTORNEY OR JUDGE
AND YOU HAD BIAS, NEGATIVE, OR UNETHICAL CASE RESULTS, PLEASE CONTACT US BELOW
exposING AGENT(S) & JUDGE(S)
RICO + - UNDER FED INVESTIGATION
CORRUPTION AND VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAWS
LETTER #1 OF 6
The letter brings to attention an investigation alleging extensive corruption and legal violations involving the Department of Human Services (DHS), Welfare Services, Adult Protective Services (APS), and the Honolulu Police Department (HPD). Specifically, Florence A. Calderon, a DHS Welfare Services Administrator, is accused of financial crimes, elder abuse, and obstruction of justice. She allegedly exploited her position to manipulate family court outcomes, including orchestrating the removal of her sister's children and influencing biased decisions within the court system. Additionally, Calderon is accused of colluding with others to discriminate against vulnerable individuals by spreading false claims about their mental health. The letter urges immediate action to investigate these allegations thoroughly, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability to restore public trust in these institutions.
*AGENTS" - AGENCY ADMINISTRATORS
(SEE) CONTINUED "FLOWCHARTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE UNDER INVESTIGATON
2026 SESSION- STOP CHAD FLORENCE MONTALBANO PRIVACY TRO ACT
STOP THE CHAD TAKARA FLORENCE MONTALBANO PRIVACY TRO ACT
Hawaii Senate Bill : STOP THE CHAD TAKARA FLORENCE MONTALBANO ACT (Draft for 2026 Legislative Session)
Title: An Act to Reform Family Court Proceedings, Protect Parental Rights, and Ensure Transparency in Child Welfare Cases
Section 1: Findings and Purpose
(a) Findings:
- Hawaii’s current definition of “imminent harm” (90-day horizon) creates overbroad grounds for child removals without court orders.
- Family Court proceedings lack transparency due to confidentiality rules, hindering accountability.
- Federal courts have historically deferred to state courts on domestic relations under the “domestic-relations exception,” but federal oversight is warranted in cases involving constitutional rights.
(b) Purpose:
- Limit temporary restraining orders (TROs) and child removals to cases with clear, verifiable evidence—not presumptions.
- Prevent frivolous custody petitions by imposing penalties for false claims.
- Transfer cases involving federal questions (e.g., civil rights violations, trust disputes) to federal courts.
- Increase transparency in child welfare proceedings while protecting privacy.
Section 2: Reforms to Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs)
(a) Evidence Standard for TROs:
- TROs in family cases may only be granted if the petitioner provides:
- Physical evidence (e.g., photographs, medical reports).
- Corroborating witness testimony from non-interested parties.
- Presumptions of harm without evidence are inadmissible.
(b) Penalties for Frivolous Filings:
- Courts shall dismiss petitions lacking credible evidence and may order the petitioner to pay legal fees and damages.
- Repeat offenders may be declared “vexatious litigants” under HI Rev Stat § 634J.
Section 3: Federal Court Jurisdiction
(a) Federal Question Cases:
- Family Court disputes involving federal constitutional claims (e.g., due process violations, discrimination) or trusts governed by federal law may be removed to U.S. District Court.
- Federal orders supersede conflicting state orders under the Supremacy Clause.
(b) Limitations:
- The domestic-relations exception remains in effect for purely state-law matters (e.g., divorce, custody).
Section 4: Transparency and Accountability
(a) Public Access to Court Records:
- Docket listings and final orders in child welfare cases shall be publicly accessible, redacting only sensitive personal information (e.g., Social Security numbers).
- The Privacy Act of 1974 does not preclude disclosure of aggregated, non-identifiable data about agency actions.
(b) Expert Requirements:
- Mental health evaluations in custody cases must be conducted by licensed psychologists/psychiatrists.
- Social workers or agency personnel without clinical credentials may not diagnose mental illness.
Section 5: Child Removals and Trust Protections
(a) Limitations on “Imminent Harm” Removals:
- Redefine “imminent harm” as a threat likely to occur within 48 hours (reduced from 90 days).
- Police/CWS must submit sworn affidavits with specific, articulable facts to justify warrantless removals.
(b) Trust Beneficiaries:
- Children who are beneficiaries of federally governed trusts may not be removed from custodial parents/guardians without a federal court order.
Section 6: Effective Date
This ACT WILL BE INTRODUCED on January 1, 2026.
Bill Name:
CV4CR 0214-2026/27
OPERATION "exposing rico-CONSPIRACY-fraud"
CIU, CPS, CSEA, DHS, CWS, HPD
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES S.O.H.
Investigative Report: DHS Administrator Under Scrutiny
Subject: Alleged Privacy Act Violations, RICO Implications, and Procedural Irregularities
Case Background
The Department of Human Services (DHS) Welfare Services Administrator, Florence A. Calderon, and affiliated individuals are under investigation by Adult Protective Services (APS) for alleged violations of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a)47, including unauthorized disclosure of records and obstruction of due process. The inquiry also examines potential violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act (18 U.S.C §§ 1961–1968)6, citing patterns of mail fraud, perjury, and coordinated misconduct involving state employees and legal professionals.
Key Allegations
1. Privacy Act Violations
- Unlawful sharing of protected estate and trust records by DHS employees, implicating 5 U.S.C. § 552a(i)(1) (unauthorized disclosure)47.
- Obstruction of certified mail delivery, currently under review by the USPS Office of Inspector General (OIG).
2. RICO Act Implications:
- Alleged systemic exploitation of custodial processes to manipulate court outcomes, mirroring tactics in United States v. FIFA (2015)6.
- Coordination between DHS employees (Florence Calderon, Chad Takara) and legal professionals to file frivolous petitions, constituting a "pattern of racketeering activity" under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5).
3. Procedural Irregularities
- Failure to adhere to HRS § 92F (Hawaii Uniform Information Practices Act) in handling estate-related records.
- Violations of due process rights under Goldberg v. Kelly (397 U.S. 254, 1970), including improper service of legal documents and denial of arbitration per contractual terms.
4. Legal Maxims Applied
- Audi alteram partem: The right to be heard, as outlined in Griffith v. ConAgra Brands (2013).
- Nemo judex in causa sua: No individual may adjudicate a matter in which they have a personal interest.
5. Case Citations
- Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (2004): Establishes standing for Privacy Act violations involving intentional disclosure of protected records.
- United States v. Young Thug (2022): Demonstrates RICO applicability to non-traditional enterprises, including alleged coordination between public officials and private actors6.
6. Pending Actions
- FOIA requests (5 U.S.C. § 552) filed for DHS and court records.
- Complaint submitted to the DOJ Civil Rights Division and DHS OIG under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1)
texas scorecard case on constitutional change
By Luca Cacciatore | May 14, 2025
2 min read
This article has been updated since publication.
Lawmakers in the Texas House have approved a proposal that would enshrine parental rights in the state constitution.
State representatives passed Senate Joint Resolution 34, initially filed by State Sen. Bryan Hughes (R–Mineola), in a 112-22-2 vote on Wednesday.
The proposed constitutional amendment would specifically establish that parents—not the state—have an inherent right to the care, custody, and control of their children.
SJR 34 originally would have restricted interference by the state or a political subdivision unless necessary to further a compelling governmental interest and narrowly tailored to achieve that purpose.
In legal theory, compelling governmental interest refers to the ability of the government to temporarily limit individual rights “when it is essential or necessary” to achieve a specific public goal.
However, the version passed earlier this week removed that language.
The initial proposal was identical to House Joint Resolution 112, authored by State Reps. James Frank (R–Wichita Falls), Jeff Leach (R–Allen), and Giovanni Capriglione (R–Southlake).
Frank was also responsible for presenting the amended Senate version to House lawmakers this week.
“This amendment to the constitution would codify parental rights into the constitution and, importantly, will provide clarity for attorneys, judges, and parents to avoid costly trials and attorneys’ fees,” said Frank.
State Rep. Ana-María Rodríguez Ramos (D–Richardson) asked Frank if he could cite specific incidences of interferences with parental rights that have occurred in Texas.
“The folks that we are talking to … Justice [Eva] Guzman, Justice [Michael] Massengale, the Texas Family Freedom Project, the Alliance for Defending Freedom, the Texas Public Policy [Foundation], and the Family Law Foundation … thought this would make it easier for parents to access,” responded Frank.
SJR 34 would help codify the results of the United States Supreme Court case Troxel v. Glanville within Texas statute.
In the 2000 ruling, justices reaffirmed the rights of parents and struck down a Washington State law allowing third parties, such as a child’s grandparents, to petition state courts for child visitation rights over parental objections.
However, years after the decision was handed down, some states have forwarded legislation that could trample on parental rights. Most recently, the Colorado House of Representatives approved a measure authorizing judges to consider whether a parent has “misgendered” a child in custody determinations.
Jeremy Newman, director of public policy for the Texas Home School Coalition, told Texas Scorecard that SJR 34 would “make Texas the first state in the country to add parental rights directly into our constitution.”
“This is a priority because, currently, the constitutional rights of parents are found only in case law, which is controlled by judges. Those rights could disappear if we have bad judges who make it into office,” explained Newman.
“Adding parental rights to the Texas Constitution is a critical protection for these most foundational rights that families have, which are essential to the functioning of our society,” he added.
While senators
already approved SJR 34 by a two-thirds majority in March, they will likely now have to create a conference committee to flesh out the changes.
No ads. No paywalls. No government grants. No corporate masters.
Just real news for real Texans.
Support Texas Scorecard to keep it that way!
FEDERAL EQUITY BY SELF GOVERNANCE
LAWFUL EQUITY EXPLAINED
Estate Administration, Privacy, and Digital Asset Access: Legal Considerations
Key Citations
- HRS § 560:3-703, § 560:3-712 (Duties and powers of personal representatives)1
- 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act of 1974)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. (Stored Communications Act)
- Ajemian v. Yahoo! Inc., 478 Mass. 169 (2017)
- Matter of Serrano, 56 Misc. 3d 497 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2017)
- Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999)
- Maxims of law
- Cannon law
LOWER / INFERIOR COURT JUDGES LOSE THIER PROTECTION FROM DOJ
DEPT OF JUSTICE - 2025-MEMO.
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES THAT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION; THE DOJ WILL NO LONGER BE PROTECTING JUDGES IN COURT FOR JUDGES THAT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION. THAT IS EVERY DE FACTO COURT. TRAFFIC AND FAMILY COURT IS MOST COMMON TO BE PRACTICING THE COLOR OF LAW AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.
self-governing civilianship
BECOME CONSTITUTIONAL UNDER NATURAL LAW
We advocate for individual rights and self-governance by offering legal solutions grounded in:
- Natural law
- Common law
- Equity law
- Trust law
- Administrative law
- Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) trust codes
These legal frameworks are designed to empower private citizens to assert their autonomy and rights.
Educational Approach
We are dedicated to providing evidence-based education founded on verified constitutional resources that uphold the Bill of Rights. Our goal is to:
- Raise awareness about potential limitations within public education systems and seek "How to be a Creditor"
- Encourage critical thinking and independent empowerment
- Promote a deeper understanding of individual rights and responsibilities
Societal Concerns:
We recognize the challenges facing modern society, particularly in relation to youth education and development.
Our organization aims to address:
- The impact of technology on learning and social interaction
- The importance of developing critical thinking skills
- The need for a well-rounded, comprehensive education that prepares individuals for informed citizenship vs. civilianship
By fostering open dialogue and providing alternative perspectives, we strive to contribute to a more informed and empowered society.
CV4CR- CHILDRENS VOICES FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
WHAT ARE WE DEALING WITH ?
Systematic corruption has profoundly impacted thousands of families across Hawaiʻi, undermining public trust and eroding the integrity of state institutions. Recent high-profile cases, such as the bribery convictions of former Senator J. Kalani English and State Representative Ty Cullen, reveal a troubling pattern: elected officials accepting substantial bribes over several years in exchange for political favors, despite the existence of stringent anti-corruption laws12. Investigations have further exposed deep-rooted issues within oversight agencies and highlighted the willful blindness of watchdog organizations, as seen in the notorious Bishop Estate scandal, where trustees and judicial authorities engaged in self-serving practices with little accountability5. These cases underscore the urgent need for comprehensive audits and reforms of de facto agencies, particularly in light of the Privacy Act of 1974, which aims to safeguard individuals’ records and ensure agency transparency3. Without decisive action and independent oversight, this systemic corruption will continue to threaten the well-being of Hawaiʻi’s communities—past, present, and future.
-Auditor
share the qr code below
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Copyright and Fair Use Disclaimer This website contains original content and may reference or include copyrighted materials. The use of such materials is intended for commentary, criticism, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research purposes, and is believed to fall within the doctrine of "fair use" as codified in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, which reflects the judicial doctrine of fair use developed prior to 1976 and discussed in legislative reports dating back to 1967.
