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 "catch da rats"
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 "TATMIDGET" 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)
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.
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.
