| Home | Login | Register | Profile | Forgot My Password | Terms and Conditions |

7A ALERT # 20190502-001

Blackmail affecting Consulting Services

James Allen, our senior manager, has worked with Nortel Networks, Sykes Enterprises, Toshiba America, and other major firms for 25 years. He was a prior $75-$200 hourly (1999-2001) consultant, prior to being victimized by asset forfeiture by DALLAS COUNTY in 2001 October to remove and conceal his only child from the child's legal residence with James Allen.

James Allen still provides consulting services, but clients are carefully screened for conflict issues with NTT AMERICA, ROBERT HALF TECHNOLOGIES, GEBHARDT BROADCASTING LLC (VIRTBIZ.COM), and other businesses whose infrastructure have been used to molest and attack our firm on cause of the child abduction and illegal concealment in trafficking (22 USC Chapter 78) of James Allen by persons in the State of Texas, State of Oklahoma, State of Michigan, and their respective subsidiaries who are competitors with his former client(s).

While he was subjected to fraud by the State of Texas following report of organized criminal activity by Texas based consultants, he has never been permitted to face his accuser in violation of U.S. law prohibited by KELLY v KELLY (OK Sup Court, P100 2007), and refused appeal or modification on threat of $102,000 USD in false claim to conceal his minor child at 74 days of age from August 2001-2019, both State of Texas and State of Oklahoma have refused relief obligated under TIMBS v INDIANA (US Sup Court, 586 U. S. ____ (2019) , DOCKET # 17-1091), whereby the abductors of "baby boy Allen" have concealed his location and refused to provide any contact for 17 years violating the very court order awarding James Allen possession of the child taken from his motor vehicle in 2001 August on threat of violence against the child that the abductors claim support their demand to forfeit the property and bodily person of James Allen under the "Black Code" of the State of Texas and State of Oklahoma.

The State of Oklahoma has recently alleged they may charge fees based on wealth, lifestyle, and other factors in violation of Federal Law 45 CFR, suspending their right to Title IV funds in full. This law is updated as of 2016 December in Fed Reg Vol 81 No 244; making this a felony to defraud the United States without 'substantial due process' required in US Const Article IV Section 1, 28 USC 1738A (e), 15 USC 1673, and 42 USC 1994. These are violations of the Thirteenth Amendment, which the States are obligated per TIMBS v INDIANA, and unconstitutional State laws used in 22 USC Chapter 78 in 'a severe form of human trafficking'.

The TEXAS FAMILY CODE used to justify this matter denied James Allen the right to default judgement when his accuser failed to appear, denied him all right to enter evidence or testimony, and suppressed these facts in fraud December 14 2001, in violation of 42 USC 1981 after denying entry of any evidence in SPOLIATION of the record and alteration of the motion for return of a child to their Oklahoma parent.

TEXAS FAMILY CODE (Sec. 157.008) would forfeit the estate and body, and demand payment of $102,000 by forcing James Allen to take out credit and borrow or be jailed despite no income or ability to pay due to blackmail and public terrorist hoax to portray his child's concealment as abandonment falsely and thereby incite the public to hate him in a felony crime without right to jury trial in his home state in Oklahoma, contrary U.S. Supreme Court TURNER v RODGERS, et al 564 U.S. 431 (2011).

Further, TEXAS FAMILY CODE (Sec. 157.109) would demand conditional to any hearing or appearance a bond or security against the person of James Allen violationg Oklahoma Constitution Article II-6, and have been attempting to force him to self-extradite to Texas conditional to withholding his child for 17 years without communication, location, status, or updates over writ of habeas corpus refused by Greg Abbott and officers of the State of Texas and State of Oklahoma.

Fraud to support this criminal enterprise in racketeering has been sustained from 2001 to 2017 by elements of the State of Texas and State of Oklahoma in knowning state-sponsored kidnapping. The contempt charge in the State of Texas sought now requires payment, regardless of ability, in an action inconsistent with Oklahoma and United States definition of the word CONTEMPT at law.

Further, the contract sought would then enforce violation of Oklahoma Constitution Article II-37 and is derived from a judgement of $500.00 which the State of Texas has been voiding and re-issuing over 17 years without regard to Federal Law (15 USC 1673) to suppress recovery and deny on legal action the immunity for writ of habeaus corpus (OK Const article II-15) in concealment of a minor child.

The contract would also force James Allen to waive custodial parent status if he provided insurance for the child as required by law, creating an entailment to the possession of his son, prohibited by Oklahoma State Constitution (II-32), in a collateral contract; and is void under 15 USC Chapter 41 Subchapter V Federal Law as it allows only ten (10) days to make payments of debts issued without limit on James Allen on threat of jail or forfeiture of estate, without any necessary or reasonable limitations on these bills whatsoever and expressly inclusive of charges which a normal insurance policy will not be required to cover.

Do not attempt to threaten or blackmail our firm with claims related to this kidnapping and child snatching (21 O.S. 21-891). You will be engaging in felony criminal activity, and all necessary force is authorized including public notice and identification of your name and actions pursuant to Title 76 O.S. 76-9. Actions of your employees or contractors will be construed as actions in commercial sabotage by your corporation, firm, or NGO.

Express or implied support for this fraud may result in criminal complaint as specified in Title 21 Section 21-867 "Child trafficking" so alleged. Under which immediate public notice is protected speech per Article II section II-3 and II-22 in 22 O.S. 22-31 response to concealment of a child to obtain money or property or anything of value on false cause and fraud.