FRAUDULENT MANUFACTURE OF IMMINENT DANGER**

SUBJECT:Fabrication of Emergency Jurisdiction through the Suppression of the July 10 “SAFE” Finding, Maryland Protective Order, and Obstruction of the Maryland Contempt Trial.
GROUND ZERO:September 26, 2024 (Filing of the Abuse & Neglect Petition).
CASE NUMBERS: WV CC-02-2024-JA-229 / WV FC-02-2024-DV-167 / MD Case C-15-FM-24-808674.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS (The Triggering Event)

Legal Classification: Structural Fraud / False Filings / Deprivation of Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242)
On September 26, 2024, the West Virginia DOHS filed a sworn petition alleging that the minor child was in “Imminent Danger.” This filing occurred 147 days after the initial May 2, 2024 investigative contact and 78 days after the DOHS’s own internalFamily Functioning Assessment (FFA) explicitly deemed the child “SAFE” (Section C).
The Petition represents a “Structural Fraud” designed to bypass the Maryland court. Beginning in June 2024, state actors Rachael Miller and Abigail Nester conspired with the Mother to use the closing of the Maryland criminal investigation as a fraudulent pretext for West Virginia intervention. The DOHS falsely claimed in the FFA that Maryland had “vacated” jurisdiction, despite having no evidence of such a move.
Verification Fraud: Maryland records confirm that no West Virginia official viewed the Maryland Forensic (CAC) interviews prior to the September 26 filing. Furthermore, on October 29, 2024, the Prosecutor admitted on the record that he had not yet seen the video evidence he had already used to secure an emergency removal. It is believed the DOHS and Prosecutor sourced the petition’s narrative from the Mother, who had been briefed on the forensic interview contents by Maryland CPS as early as April 26, 2024.

II. CRIMINAL SCHEME ANALYSIS (Premeditation)

The DOHS, Prosecutor, and Mother engaged in a premeditated conspiracy to “launder” a cleared Maryland case into a West Virginia removal:

1. Assistance in Perjury:DOHS actors notified the Mother in advance of the September 26 filing. This allowed the Mother to fraudulently testify in Maryland that she was in “full compliance” and had “no knowledge” of a West Virginia case, while state actors simultaneously prepared the filing to shield her from the Maryland court.
2. The Hearsay Petition:Because Maryland logs show no West Virginia access to the forensic videos, the petition was drafted using secondary hearsay. By using the Mother as the source for the child’s “disclosures”—content she possessed since April 26—the DOHS allowed a suspect parent to dictate the terms of a state-sponsored removal.
3. Impeding Maryland Contempt: The filing was timed to impede the Father’s active contempt proceedings in Maryland. The Judge and Prosecutor cannot feign ignorance, as the Maryland Contempt Summons was entered into the West Virginia record in October.

III. ENUMERATED CRIMINAL & STATE VIOLATIONS

• False Swearing & False Filings (W. Va. Code § 61-5-3; § 61-5-17):Filing a verified petition claiming “danger” based on forensic evidence that the petitioners had never actually viewed.
• Deprivation of Rights (18 U.S.C. § 242; WV Const. Art. III, § 10): Willfully depriving both the Father and the child of familial integrity based on unverified, stale hearsay.
• Interstate Mail & Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343): Utilizing electronic communication to coordinate the Mother’s perjured testimony while simulating compliance with Maryland visitation orders.
• Exploitation of a Vulnerable Adult (W. Va. Code § 61-2-29b): Forcing a disabled stroke survivor into $750,000 in legal fees through the fraudulent relitigation of settled facts.

IV. DISPROVEN CLAIMS (The Forensic Refutation)

• Petitioner’s Claim:“Emergency intervention is required because the child’s disclosures (per the CAC) indicate immediate danger.”
• Documented Reality: The federal NCANDS record shows a Final Determination of UNSUBSTANTIATED on May 30, 2024.
• Why Disproven: The Prosecutor admitted on October 29he had not seen the CAC video. No official had first-hand knowledge of the evidence they swore justified an emergency. The petition was a “Laundered Narrative” provided by the Mother to defeat the Maryland safety plan.

V. INVESTIGATIVE EFFORT ANALYSIS (Willful Blindness)

• Verification Negligence: DOHS willfully failed to obtain or view the Maryland Forensic Interview before swearing to its contents. They relied on the Mother’s April 26 briefing as the basis for a September emergency.
• Judicial Complicity: The Judge unilaterally waived the Preliminary Hearing on October 10th. By the October 29 hearing, even with the Prosecutor’s admission of not seeing the video, the court refused to dismiss the fraudulent petition.

VI. PROCEDURAL COVER-UP (Suppression)

Evidence Point	Present In (Records)	Omitted From (Sworn Filings)	Objective of the Deceit
“SAFE” Finding	YES (July 10 FFA).	OMITTED	To manufacture “Imminent Danger.”
Access to CAC Video	NO (Per MD Logs).	OMITTED (Framed as verified).	To hide the hearsay source (the Mother).
Prosecutor Admission	YES (10/29 Transcript).	OMITTED from Orders.	To preserve the appearance of a valid filing.
MD Contempt Summons	YES (Entered Oct 2024).	OMITTED	To provide a “safe haven” for Mother.

VII. DISPARATE TREATMENT ANALYSIS

Standard of Procedure	Suspect (Mother)	Target (Father)
Verification	Her April 26 summary used as DOHS fact.	His medical/clinical pH 7.0 evidence suppressed.
Access to Evidence	Sourced the petition’s narrative.	Denied access to the “Safe” FFA and logs.
Rights Protection	Shielded from MD contempt trial.	Exploited financially due to disability.

VIII. MATERIAL WITNESSES & EXHIBIT LOG

Exhibit	Significance
October 29 Transcript	Prosecutor Admission: Admits on record he had not seen the CAC video used for the petition.
Maryland CPS Log	Proves the Mother received forensic contents on April 26, 2024, identifying the source of the fraud.
July 10 FFA	Internal “SAFE” finding that renders the Sept 26 “Danger” claim a false filing.
Safe Passages Email	Proves the Mother simulated compliance hours before the filing.

IX. CONCLUSION

The September 26, 2024 Petition is a legal nullity built on Second-Hand Hearsay. By claiming “Imminent Danger” based on evidence (the CAC interview) that neither the DOHS nor the Prosecutor had actually viewed, state actors executed aVerification Fraud. The evidence proves the petition was a “collusive script” provided by the Mother—who had access to the Maryland forensic results since April—to trigger a West Virginia removal just in time to block a Maryland contempt trial.
Recommendation: Move to vacate all West Virginia orders as Void Ab Initio for lack of the statutory threshold and verified evidence.

Evidence Sheet: Fraudulent Manufacture of Emergency Jurisdiction

Targeted Action:The fraudulent filing of an “Imminent Danger” petition on September 26, 2024, to induce emergency jurisdiction and override the child’s home state (Maryland).

Action A: Suppression of the July 10 “SAFE” Determination

State Actors involved: Abigail Nester (CPSW), Rachael Miller (CPS Supervisor).

1. Supporting Evidence: Exhibit A
   Document: West Virginia DOHS Family Functioning Assessment (FFA) filed July 10, 2024. Excerpts:
   SECTION C: CONCLUSION (SAFETY DECISION)
   [X] The Child(ren) is/are safe (because) no impending dangers were identified.

Based on specific case information, explain how the enhanced caregiver protective capacities ensure child safety below.
There are no current caregiver factors affecting child safety…

(Source: DOHS FFA, Case 24-JAA-76; Approved by Rachael Miller on 07/08/2024; Filed with Court 07/10/2024)

2. Narration of the Action
   State agents Abigail Nester and Rachael Miller completed a formal Family Functioning Assessment (FFA) that was filed with the court on July 10, 2024. This official record explicitly checked the box for “SAFE” and stated that “no impending dangers were identified.” Despite this official internal finding, and without any new investigation or change in circumstances, these same agents signed a sworn petition 78 days later (September 26) claiming the child was in “Imminent Danger.”
3. Proof of Intent, Deceit, and Fraud
   This proves the claim of “Imminent Danger” was awillful manufacture of fact. Miller and Nester possessed actual knowledgeof their own “SAFE” determination from July 10, yet they swore to the exact opposite under penalty of perjury in September. This was a calculated act of deceit used to trigger emergency removal powers that the state knew it did not legally possess.

Action B: Suppression of the Active Maryland Protective Order

State Actors involved: Abigail Nester (CPSW), R. Greg Garretson (Assistant Prosecutor).

1. Supporting Evidence: Exhibit B
   Document: DOHS Client Contact Report / FFA Disposition. Excerpts:
   Date/Time: 06/21/2024 03:50 PM
   …Ms. Thomas reported MD issued a year long protective order as a final order. No other details of court intervention were shared.

(Source: Safety Determination and MD FPO References, Page 1)

2. Narration of the Action
   As documented in the case logs on June 21, 2024, Abigail Nester had actual knowledge that a Maryland court had already issued a Final Protective Order. This order established the legal safety plan for the child in her Home State. When filing the September 26 petition, Garretson and Nester intentionally omitted any mention of this active order, representing to the West Virginia judge that the child was unprotected and that no other court was managing the safety of the child.
3. Proof of Intent, Deceit, and Fraud
   This proves Jurisdictional Fraud. By hiding the Maryland Order, state actors intentionally deceived the West Virginia judge to prevent a mandatory UCCJEA jurisdictional conference. This was a strategic act of fraud designed to “kidnap” the case into West Virginia and bypass the Maryland court’s exclusive authority and its mandated reunification therapy.

Action C: Verification Fraud (Verification of Unviewed Evidence)

State Actors involved: R. Greg Garretson (Assistant Prosecutor), Abigail Nester (CPSW), Rachael Miller (Supervisor).

1. Supporting Evidence: Exhibit C1
   Document: Transcript of Rescheduling Hearing (October 29, 2024) vs. Sept 26 Sworn Verification. Excerpts:
   THE COURT: Have you seen the CAC video?
   MR. GARRETSON: No, Your Honor, I have not.

(Source: 10/29 Transcript, Page 12)
2. Supporting Evidence: Exhibit C2
Document: Maryland CCWIS (MD-CJAMS) Audit Logs / Discovery Verification. Excerpts:
Maryland CCWIS (MD-CJAMS) records confirm that as of September 26, 2024, no West Virginia official—neither the DOHS worker Abigail Nester nor the Prosecutor—had requested, received, or viewed the April 26 Maryland Forensic Interview.

The digital audit trail proves there was no “handshake” or file transfer of the video evidence prior to the filing of the West Virginia petition.

3. Narration of the Action
   The September 26 petition contained graphic “quotes” from a forensic interview as if they were verified facts. However, Maryland’s CCWIS system records prove thatno one in West Virginia had actually viewed the video at the time of the filing. Nester and Miller wrote the narrative based on unverified second-hand information provided by the suspect (Mother), yet presented it to the court as verified firsthand evidence.
4. Proof of Intent, Deceit, and Fraud
   This proves False Swearing and Structural Fraud. The state actors knew they lacked firsthand knowledge, yet they intentionally concealed this vacuum to induce the court into signing a removal order. They laundered hearsay into a sworn petition to manufacture the “evidence” required for jurisdiction, proving the petition was a deceptive script rather than a verified pleading.Action D: Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Maryland’s Investigative Status
   State Actors involved: Abigail Nester (CPSW), Rachael Miller (Supervisor).
5. Supporting Evidence: Exhibit D
   Document: Maryland CPS Final Report / CCWIS Verification. Excerpts:
   Maryland Finding (May 30, 2024): Allegations UNSUBSTANTIATED. Case closed.

West Virginia FFA (July 10, 2024): Misrepresents the Maryland closure as “unable to identify where the abuse occurred” to justify West Virginia re-opening the case.

2. Narration of the Action
   Maryland authorities closed their investigation on May 30, 2024, as “Unsubstantiated.”West Virginia officials had access to this through the interstate CCWIS system. Instead of deferring to the Home State’s finding, they misrepresented the nature of the Maryland closure to the West Virginia court to make it appear that the investigation was “incomplete” rather than “exonerated.”
3. Proof of Intent, Deceit, and Fraud
   This proves Institutional Fraud. The DOHS workers possessed the Maryland CCWIS records proving the Father was cleared, but they intentionally re-characterized those records to provide a fraudulent pretext for West Virginia to seize control. This demonstrates a clear intent to relitigate a settled matter through deception.

List of Exhibits

• Exhibit A: West Virginia DOHS Family Functioning Assessment (Case 24-JAA-76), filed July 10, 2024.
• Exhibit B: DOHS Case Log Entry dated June 21, 2024 (Abigail Nester).
• Exhibit C1: Transcript of the October 29, 2024, Rescheduling Hearing (In Re: A.T.).
• Exhibit C2: Maryland MD-CJAMS (CCWIS) Audit Logs proving no access to CAC video prior to 9/26.
• Exhibit D:Maryland CPS Final Report (Investigation [TAG_ID#e0378b20-79dc-439e-924e-04ae79491a76] finding “Unsubstantiated.”
• Exhibit E: Sworn Verification page of the September 26, 2024, Abuse and Neglect Petition.
• Exhibit F: Maryland Final Protective Order (Case C-15-FM-24-808674), entered May 30, 2024.