Rule 60. Relief from Judgment or Order, MCA

Davina Attar-Williams

The DC's judgments are also void because the DC and Steve's intentional evasion of any evidence or testimony related to or concerning the children or what is in their best interests to conceal all evidence and any reference of Steve pervasive abuse and neglect of the children ... [[SEE OPD CONTRACT ATTORNEY SURVEY word doc from 10.17.2023 for the draftings about the OoP hearing demonstrating how dangerous and abusive Steve was toward me and especially the children and did not try to hide that fact from the DC throughout the 9.17.2019 Order of Protection Hearing (used a lot of DARVO reverse victim blaming which the judge himself stopped Steve from continuing at one point to inform him he was not helping himself by taunting Davina with aggressive re-victimizing questions which demonstrated he absolutely did everything Davina described he did when he tried to kill her and 7-month-old ARW on 7.21.2019) -- which the DC went on to then facilitate all subsequent proceedings to specifically keep all evidence of Steve's extensive history of abusing the children and their mother to ensure a FPP that protected the best interests of Steve to get away with constantly severely escalating his disturbing abuse of the children and torturing Davina with post-separation abuse the DC will punish her for trying to stand up to or protect her children from by taking her parenting time away to give it to Steve to have more power and control to abuse the kids and keep Davina from protecting them or being able to report or hold Steve accountable for any of it -- see the legally insufficient medical support order in the APP's provision to prevent the children from ever being able to have a regular therapist or therapy sessions -- ]] ...  demonstrates such an unmistakably brazen level of judicial bias on the part of the DC and staff (court reports and Judicial Assistant to the Honorable Donald L. Harris, Kim Anderson) against Davina and fraud upon the court carried out by officers of the court (namely, the district court judge presiding over the matter, the Respondent who is a practicing attorney and his attorney Kelly J. Varnes who all worked in concert with the DC (Judge Harris, JA Anderson, Court Reporters Jan Barry and James Glover) working together since after the 9.17.2019 Order of Protection hearing but before the first dissolution-related hearing held on 11.13.2019 to implement the pervasive fraud upon the court upon which every decision made and order issued by the DC in YCDC Cause No DR 19-893 is based.  -    inner workings of the judicial machinery were ....FALCON v FALKNER seminal fraud upon the court case  --> see also Cox's R 60(b) Motion for Relief from Judgment he filed after his lawsuits against that judge and professional complaints and related lawsuits/litigation... - Yellowstone County District Court Cause No. DR 19-893 was never litigated; rather, every order issued by the court and decision made was based on a strong judicial bias resulting in a   all orchestrated by the DC/OC/Respondent working in concert to carry out whatever fraud upon the court was necessary to execute the premeditated judicial outcome they agreed the court would order to unconscionably favor and benefit Steve to the great detriment of Davina, the subject children and their basic safety, well-being and ability to live their lives. Instead it is all about Steve having all the control to refuse to let Davina or the children live anything near normal or comfortable lives. We all suffer in survival mode 24/7 with our conditions worsening at all times  Then immediately engaged in actively precluding any evidence of what is in the best interests of the children or references thereof anywhere in the record at any hearings starting with the 11.13.2019 Show Cause Hearing through the last hearing held in YCDC Cause No. DR 19-983: the 1.20.2023 Contempt Hearing [MORE FRAUD UPON THE COURT] Marriage of Converse: a parenting plan order not issued based on an assessment of the pertinent parenting factors including but not limited to those listed under Sec. 40-4-212(1), MCA, is void as a matter of law.  Wendt v. Wendt, 2014 MT 174: not mentioned the best interests of the children factors in an order adopting a parenting plan constitutes a lack of due process making the judgment void under Rule 60(b)(4).