Legal Document Type: Legal Letter: Letter to Judge Selby

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

Document Content:
Dear Judge Selby,

Pursuant to the Court�s notice of hearing for March 26th, 2025 at "10":30 a.m - 
I am writing to formally address the ongoing violations of my rights and the court�s repeated failure to apply legal standards fairly in my custody case. This letter serves as an official request for written clarification on multiple legal errors and procedural violations that have obstructed my ability to seek justice. As established in State ex rel. Houska v. Dickhaner, 323 S.W.3d 29 (Mo. 2010), mandamus is appropriate when a court fails to perform duties required by law or abuses its discretion in ways that cannot be adequately remedied through ordinary appeals. The pattern of procedural violations in this case meets this standard.
1. The Unlawful Basis for the Temporary Custody Order
Missouri law is clear on the requirements for granting a temporary custody "order": Imminent Danger Standard (RSMo 210.125): Emergency custody can only be granted if there is reasonable cause to believe a child is in immediate danger due to abuse or neglect. Temporary Custody Orders (RSMo 452.380): Courts must rely on clear, supporting evidence demonstrating that a change in custody is in the child�s best interest.
The sole justification for granting the temporary custody motion was the false testimony of Jozef Hanratty, who falsely claimed I was facing eviction. The court itself acknowledged that if I remained in my residence the following week, it would prove Jozef�s dishonesty.
One week later, I was still in my residence, confirming the perjury committed by Hanratty. Despite this, my motion to dismiss was ignored. Furthermore, I have since submitted multiple documents proving Jozef and Crycella�s dishonesty, "including":
A letter from Kelly Truelove�s attorney validating my lawful tenancy.
Video evidence of Crycella denying my court-ordered communication with Felix.
Formal legal documents disproving the eviction claim.
Yet, the court has refused to review this clear and irrefutable