Legal Document Type: Legal Objection: OBJECTION TO THE QUALIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case Information: Case 24SN-DR00104 | Status: OverRuled

Document Content:
OBJECTION TO THE QUALIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER
Counter-Petitioner respectfully objects to the Qualified Protective Order. While we acknowledge the importance of protecting sensitive psychological information, the proposed order risks overcomplicating the process and diverting focus from the best interests of the child.

As Patterson v. Chicago, 141 F.3d 831, 836 (7th Cir. 1998) emphasizes simplicity and fairness in court proceedings; we request that the Court deny the motion to the extent it creates unnecessary complexity. Delays and procedural burdens would only exacerbate the harm caused by the opposing party�s actions and undermine the integrity of these proceedings.
OFFER OF PROOF
1. Motion to Review Racial Bias
The Honorable Judge Matt Alan Selby, court clerks, Josh Garrett, and Crycella Freitag(and family) have demonstrated a pattern of unfair treatment and racial bias against the Counter-Petitioner Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).  Formal reports detailing these incidents have been filed and are on record with the court. "Specifically":
The presiding judge has made rulings that demonstrate a clear bias against the Counter-Petitioner, ignoring or discounting (17) articles of submitted valid evidence and arguments presented by the Counter-Petitioner.
Court clerks have engaged in recorded discriminatory behavior as Jurisdictional Overreach & Procedural Violations to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 81.12.
The Court�s failure to review the evidence allowed perjury to persist on multiple occasions, even after the Counter-Petitioner submitted clear proof to all parties. This disregard for the truth has created a hostile environment and severely prejudiced Counter-Petitioner�s right to a fair hearing.
These actions violate Due Process Clause outlined in the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rule 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal) and Rule 8.4 (Misconduct) Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009).
Requested "Relief":
The Court refers this ma