Facts Not Known

Facts Not Known By Media, Misrepresentations by Adversary, Prosecutorial Misconduct & Facts Already before Federal Courts.

  • Maria Jose in writing did notify Innes, the NJ Judge and Court, Federal Authorities – ICE who granted her a Travel and Re-entry in the USA Document –, Fort Lee police, Spain, and the  Ecclesiastical Courts of her intention to travel (or of her travel plans). No one opposed said travel plans, and therefore constitutes tacit consent  (Evidence Appendix at 3rd Cir. A1-A9).  PACER MIRROR IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.
  • It is false that there was an order by a Chancery court in NJ that prohibited Maria Jose and her child to travel. The Judge was duly informed as per Court records available in Spain Courts Proceedings.
  • The NJ Court was not vested with the jurisdictional power to hear and consider the matter brought before it by Maria Jose’s opponent (Innes), since it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, it lacked condition precedent for a divorce proceeding to be legally heard. The conditio sine qua non for the legality of the divorce proceeding (the existence of a marriage) was not met.  See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. R. 60(b)(4).  Maria Jose moved on June 2006, to  dismiss the divorce proceeding, yet a BIAS Judge (Torack) never heard her motion, and proceeded to trial, granting Innes a VOID DIVORCE and SOLE CUSTODY.  Judges in Civil and Criminal Proceedings are out of the bench, and along others under scrutiny for corruption, among them former Senators Corzine and Menendez.
  • The NJ Court had no subject matter jurisdiction, neither in rem nor in personam.  Under Federal Law, the Supremacy Clause, International Treaties and the US Const Second Amendt., certainly neither over my child.   Innes brought suit against Maria Jose in Spain, under the Hague Convention of 1980 arts. 13b,12.1, 3b, 5, 14, 16 and 29; ICARA & 42 USC sect 11603 (g)  –-  and before the Court of Instance No 9 of Valencia. The court found in favor of Maria Jose, both in the lower court and upon appeal. The  decisions and judgments of the Spain Tribunals, where Innes was the Plaintiff and was afforded due process of law, are worthy of reciprocity, comity and observance by American courts, and under the US Const., federal law, and 28 USC sect 2254 (a).
  • In order to illegally defraud Maria Jose of her assets, Innes put her through double jeopardy and re-litigated the custody of the child, as well as issues related to Maria Jose’s assets/property rights issues. [see Appeal Brief, Reply and Judgment of Jan. 20, or the Petition for Certiorari]. Through means of procedural fraud, the assistance of a Bergen county policewoman, with whom he was intimately involved, , and corruption of court proceedings through falsification of  evidence and witness tampering.

  • Peter Innes was responsible for the deprivation of Maria Jose’s right to due process, has stolen of all her assets,  including her home in New York, her companies, and even stole her identity.  Innes is also responsible for her incarceration for over 8 ½ years, with her freedom of movements restricted still today by the terms of her parole. To this date continues to torment Maria Jose’s family, inter alia, illegally registering and owning their identities’ domains et al. [evidence available upon request.];
  • As a result of /during the illegal divorce proceedings, the Court assisted Innes (my adversary) in obtaining all my assets, my two homes and all my personal property, causing millions in damages to my patrimony, despite a prenuptial agreement.  He even used Maria Jose’s child to further his end, by bringing false charges of interference with parental custodial rights, ending in charges of contempt of court.  See Habeas Action Petition – Brief doc. 1-2, 1-3, and Appeal Brief-, enclosed in this presentation.
  • Maria Jose’s opponent/s obtained favorable court-decisions by means of fraud, and she was subjected to Malicious Prosecution and Prosecutorial Misconducts that warrant dismissal of all charges, civil and criminal proceedings, and my exoneration as sought forth in petitions before federal courts.
  • Wikileaks documents, book by Mr. Glenn Greenwald – With Liberty and Justice for Some [in re Spaniard Civilian (“Maria Jos Carrascosa”) Kidnapped and Camera Man Jose Cous–, and other materials support Maria Jose’s actual innocence, along with evidence of her exoneration by International Proceedings (Hague and Spain) Courts, and US Const. XIV, VI, VIII, & Int’l. Treaties. Human Rights Declarations and International Organizations  and Activists.  First Amendt. OPE LEGIS, a nullity of actions in the US is called for, along with dismissal of all proceedings held against Maria Jose. I pray you join us…
  • Victoria Solenne’s decision from 2014 to this day, under International and Domestic Law, International Treaties of the US and Hague Member Countries, and arts. 12.1 and 12.2, 13.a and 13.b, and arts 3b, 5, 14, 16 and 20 are to be accounted for.  The State of New Jersey if it ever had standing lost it when she turned 12.  Spain Courts and Generalitat of Valencia have accepted the child’s decision.  She is a mature child who had to grow too fast. She counts!

  • Under NJSA 2C:13.4 c and d, and Spain Hague Courts’ Res Judicata resolutions, as well as the invoked laws and statutes in Maria Jose’s briefs before the Third Circuit, and the fact that she was Maliciously Prosecuted and Wrongfully convicted there was never cause or elements to the charges of the indictment.  You may download the refutal and last entry of the parties in US Fed. Ct. Dist. of NJ docket No. 15.cv. 5956 JMV (substituting Susan Wigenton, JFC) Carrascosa v. State of New Jersey, NJ Attorney General, Officer O’Brien et al. This refutal corresponds to the docket for Maria Jose Carrascosa’s Petition for Habeas Corpus and Coram Nobis against the State, Bergen County and its Prosecutor’s Office and the NJ Attorney General, the Parole Agency et al.  The action is for review of the illegal divorce proceedings and all illegal orders and charges risen from it against Ms. Carrascosa contrary to the US Constitution and International Treaties, and given her actual innocence of all charges of the indictment: Interference with custody and Court Contempt…

  • Further evidence is available if your firm joins Maria Jose’s fight for justice and will be supplied in its due time under our professional attorney-client relationship. Specifics are herein withheld due to confidentiality and safety for Maria Jose and her child.


Maria José’s US Supporters.

Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) v. United States of America
Jessica Lenahan Wins Landmark Case Before Inter-American Commission On Human Rights.
The Human Rights Clinic at the University of Miami School of Law, the Human Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School, and the American Civil Liberties Union represented Jessica Lenahan (formerly Gonzales) in Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) v. United States of America, a landmark case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
On August 17, 2011, the Commission issued its landmark decision, finding the United States responsible for human rights violations suffered by Lenahan and recommended changes to U.S. domestic violence law and policy. Welcoming the Commission’s August 17 decision, Jessica stated, “I have waited 12 years for justice, knowing in my heart that police inaction led to the tragic and untimely deaths of my three young daughters. Today’s decision tells the world that the government violated my human rights by failing to protect me and my children from domestic violence.”
The Gonzales decision offers advocates the opportunity to contrast existing U.S. law and policy in the civil rights arena with international human rights principles. By framing domestic violence as a human rights violation, the case challenges advocates and policymakers to re-think the current approach to domestic violence in the U.S., and asks whether fundamental rights are being respected, protected, and fulfilled. The decision holds the potential to influence domestic violence advocacy in the United States, and more broadly, to help bring human rights home to the U.S.

Gonzalez Carreño v. Spain

Protective Mom Freed!
Father Gives Judge Permission to Release Mother
Mother Endured 9 Years Incarceration to Protect Daughter
“I would rather die than bring my daughter back to New Jersey [to her abuser].”
– Protective Mom Maria to Judge in 2006-
Thank you so very much to Aland Dawson & Safe Kids International and please let’s work together so this is not repeated again.  Love, Maria José Carrascosa.