Legal Researcher, Brief Writing, Preparing U.S. District Court Complaints, Preparing Idaho state District Court Civil Tort Claims Complaint.

Qualified individual to conduct legal research and prepare Appellant briefs.

The successful candidate will work with two attorneys and with the Appellant Petitioner.

The position requires 5 years of experience conducting legal research in U.S. District Courts and state law, preparing appellant briefs. The individual should have specialized knowledge of U.S. constitutional law, specifically in due process rights (procedural and substantive due process rights violations).

Familiarity with U.S. State Law, particularly in relation to family law and guardianship matters, is also crucial given the specifics of the case.

Qualifications:

1. Strong Research Skills: The individual should have the ability to conduct thorough and accurate legal research, and be able to analyze and interpret complex legal documents, such as court rulings and legal precedents. They should also be familiar with legal databases and have the ability to gather and analyze research data, such as statutes, decisions, legal articles, codes, and documents.

2. Understanding of Microsoft OneNote, and an existing database of case law specific to the matter in the matter on Appeal before the Idaho Supreme Court.

3. Communication Skills: They should have strong communication skills, with the ability to effectively communicate complex legal concepts and arguments.

4. Attention to Detail: They should have a keen attention to detail, ensuring that all legal documents are accurate and that all relevant legal procedures are followed.

5. Understanding of Medical Evidence: Given the nature of the case, the individual should have an understanding of how to interpret and apply medical evidence and testimony in a legal context.

6. Legal Knowledge: A legal researcher should have a comprehensive understanding of U.S. constitutional law, specifically in due process rights, both procedural and substantive rights violations.

7. Experience: The individual should have at least 5 years of experience conducting legal research in U.S. District Courts and state law. This experience should include preparing legal briefs, conducting legal research, and preparing summaries of case law.

8. Compliance: The individual should comply with the Idaho Appellate Rule 35. Content and Arrangement of Briefs, and other Idaho Rules for Appeal before the Idaho Supreme Court. (a) 1. - 7.) Appellant's Brief. [login to view URL]

9. Become familiar with the Idaho Supreme Court's Pro Se Appellant Handbook

a. [login to view URL]

10. Idaho Appellate Rule 35(e)References in Briefs to the Reporter's Transcript and Clerk's or Agency's Record. [login to view URL]

a. Pro Se Appellant Deadlines

[login to view URL]

b. Number of Copies Appeals from the District Courts

[login to view URL]

c. Checklists Checklist for Briefs

[login to view URL]

d. Color Chart for Briefs Checklists for Briefs

[login to view URL]

11. Responsibilities:

a. Conduct legal research on due process rights and related U.S. constitutional violations, prepare a summary of the State of Idaho case law and U.S. Federal case laws, and prepare the Appellant's brief for a pending appeal before the Idaho Supreme Court.

b. Work with two attorneys and with the Appellant Ms. Ray Appellant Petitioner.

c. Minor Child Kendall Co-Appellant's attorney will prepare the child's brief that is also due November 24, 2023

d. Ensure compliance with the Idaho Appellate Rule 35. Content and Arrangement of Briefs, and other Idaho Rules for Appeal before the Idaho Supreme Court, as outlined in no. 8., 9., and 10. above

12. Attached is a court filing that identifies the Guardian Court's magistrates’ actions that are unlawful and which denied both the child Kendall's and the Guardian Grandmother Natasha's civil procedural and substantive due process and other rights violations.

13. A Memorandum in Support of Motion for Trial De Novo filed by the minor child’s attorney, and Appellant Ray's Memorandum in Re Due Process Violation and Extension of Time. These provide an in-depth review of the cases before the Idaho Supreme Court.

14. The Ada County cases appeal before the Idaho Supreme Court in two Ada County magistrate cases, e.g. Guardianship and Custody cases.

12. Attached is a court filing that identifies the Guardian Court's magistrates’ actions that are unlawful and which denied both the child Kendall's and the Guardian Grandmother Natasha's civil procedural and substantive due process and other rights violations.

13. A Memorandum in Support of Motion for Trial De Novo filed by the minor child’s attorney, and Appellant Ray's Memorandum in Re Due Process Violation and Extension of Time. These provide an in-depth review of the cases before the Idaho Supreme Court.

14. The Ada County cases appeal before the Idaho Supreme Court in two Ada County magistrate cases, e.g. Guardianship and Custody cases.

Guardianship Appeal:

Appellant Ray, Pro Se, and

Co-Appellant, minor child "Kendall" represented by attorney William Seiniger.

Guardianship Appellants Brief Due November 24, 2023

Ray was appointed Temporary Guardian for minor child Kendall on September 20, 2016. The Guardianship case was dismissed on Aug. 2, 2021.

The Guardian case was dismissed without the court having considered multiple motions and the court having failed to hear unopposed medical evidence to determine if the minor child’s Guardianship should not have been dismissed without a hearing to determine whether or not Kendall continued to need protection.

Substantive and procedural due process violations, and other right deprivations.

The Appeals have been consolidated for Clerk’s Records ONLY

Summary of Main Appellant’s Issues:

17. In the custody matter, Kendall’s custody was awarded without a hearing or consideration of the factors required by Idaho code 32 – 717 (1). This violated Kendall’s constitutional rights.

18. In addition to the due process issues, which are essentially the same for both appellants, Natasha was wrongfully convicted of contempt for refusing visitation at the recommendation of Kendall’s treating pediatrician, John Jambura, MD.

19. Guardian Matter: The law is clear that the Guardian Magistrate Chris Bieter had the authority to remove Natasha Ray as Kendall’s temporary guardian, but the presiding magistrate did not have the statutory authority (subject matter jurisdiction) to order Natasha how she is to supervise her guardianship Kendall. The magistrate’s ordering visitation (and, more significantly, refusing to consider medical evidence) and to determine custody which he did not have subject matter jurisdiction to order custody under the guardianship act, and was in direct conflict with the unrebutted and unimpeached declarations of multiple medical experts who recommended against Ordering Kendall visitation with her biological parents because of her four diagnosed severe psychiatric conditions including Depressive Disorder, Separation Anxiety Disorder, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) with dissociative Features, and Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD).

20. In the guardianship matter, the Idaho Supreme Court will have to determine if it is within the bounds of discretion for a guardian magistrate to ignore the unrebutted and unimpeached medical warnings of Kendall’s treating doctors, counselors, and psychiatrist in order to force visitation, and the having failed to determine if Kendall required the continued protection of the guardianship court.

21. The guardian court magistrate ultra virus applied Idaho Rules of Family law procedure to unlawfully appoint a parenting coordinator Ordering the implementation of the parenting coordinator’s visitation and transfer of custody to the biological parents, and holding two trials to prosecute Natasha Ray for contempt of court on May 28, 2021, and on September 14, 2021, after which she was jailed under the color of law. The guardian magistrate had no subject matter jurisdiction to appoint a parenting coordinator nor prosecute Natasha Ray for contempt of court for refusing to follow the magistrate’s unlawful orders that were Orders under the color of law.

23. Essentially, all that you need to understand initially out of the first document in the binder, which is a memorandum created to support a motion for trial de novo in the appeal in the custody case. Also included is Breck Seiniger's reply memorandum in that case, his supporting declaration, and some additional briefing in the custody case, in the amended notice of appeal in the guardianship case. To make your review a little simpler, there are color-coded bookmarks. The red bookmarks are the orders and judgments on appeal. The green bookmarks are relevant transcripts. The blue bookmarks are the unrebutted declarations of Kendall’s lifelong pediatrician, John Jambura, MD.

Investigación legal Redacción legal

Nº del proyecto: #37445104

Sobre el proyecto