Case No: 17-101066-DM

Hon. Nicole N. Goodson

Response to Brittany (Smith-Davis) Holmes' Response to Motion

Regarding Change of Domicile/Legal Residence for Child, Iman Davis

Testimony of Truth Under God

Introduction

This document serves as my formal response to Brittany (Smith-Davis)

Holmes' claims regarding the change of domicile and legal residence for our
child, Iman Davis. I, Maurice Smith-Davis, Trust Interest Holder, Beneficiary,
non-adverse party, and natural man created by God, over 18 years of age,
hereinafter referred to as "Affiant" and/or "Declarant/Affiant," do solemnly
affirm, declare, and state under penalty of perjury the following:

1. Competency and Domicile:

Affiant is of the age of majority, of sound mind, and competent to testify.
Affiant is domiciled in the State of Michigan, a member republic of the Union
established by the Articles of Confederation and later expressed by the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the United States of
America.

2. Truthfulness of Statements:
All the facts stated herein are true, correct, and complete in accordance
with Affiant’s best firsthand knowledge and understanding, admissible as
evidence, and if called upon as a witness, Affiant will testify to their veracity.

3. Good Faith Declaration:

I have, in good faith, determined the facts stated herein as being true,
correct, complete, and not meant to mislead. By signing this Affidavit of Truth
before a Notary Public as an authentic act, I hereby claim and declare: In
Good Faith, I declare and proclaim the following with clean hands at arm’s
length: Equality is paramount and mandatory by law, and Affiant is not a
corporation, nor a fiction or artificial entity; Affiant is a real "flesh and blood"
man.

Legal and Moral Framework

Referencing Pomeroy's American Jurisprudence and Gibson's Suits in

Chancery, 2nd Edition, it is evident that principles of equity and justice must
prevail in matters where the welfare of individuals and the integrity of legal
processes are at stake. As stated in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000),
the Supreme Court emphasizes the importance of parental rights and the
presumption that fit parents act in their children’s best interests.
Additionally, Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979), recognizes the fundamental
liberty interest of parents in the care, custody, and management of their
children.

Furthermore, Biblical principles guide our understanding of truth and justice.

Proverbs 31:8-9 in the King James Bible states: "Open thy mouth for the
dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction. Open thy
mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy." This
verse emphasizes the moral duty to advocate for truth and justice, aligning
with the principles of equity jurisprudence.

Michigan Supreme Court Case Law

To further support my position, I reference several key Michigan Supreme

Court cases that guide custody decisions in this jurisdiction:

1. Best Interests of the Child:

The Michigan Supreme Court in Vodvarka v. Grasmeyer, 259 Mich. App.
499, 675 N.W.2d 847 (2003), emphasized the need to assess the best
interests of the child in custody matters. The court's primary concern is the
child's welfare, ensuring that custody arrangements promote stability and a
nurturing environment.

2. Parental Rights and Fitness:

In Hunter v. Hunter, 484 Mich. 247, 771 N.W.2d 694 (2009), the court
reiterated that parental rights are fundamental and should be upheld unless
there is clear evidence to the contrary. This case underscores the
presumption that fit parents will act in the best interests of their children.

3. Joint Custody Considerations:

The case of Pierron v. Pierron, 486 Mich. 81, 782 N.W.2d 480 (2010),
addressed the importance of maintaining meaningful relationships with both
parents. The court acknowledged that joint custody arrangements often
serve the child's best interests when both parents are actively involved in
their upbringing.

4. Stability and Continuity:

The Michigan Supreme Court in Foskett v. Foskett, 247 Mich. App. 1, 634
N.W.2d 363 (2001), highlighted the significance of maintaining stability and
continuity in the child's life. The court recognized that changes in custody
should only occur when they clearly benefit the child's overall well-being.
 Plain Statement of Facts

Response to Allegations:
The following statements are in response to Brittany (Smith-Davis) Holmes’
allegations against me, Maurice Smith-Davis, concerning our daughter, Iman
Davis.

Character and Conduct:

Ms. Holmes has used misleading language and allegations to defame my
character in court. Despite her claims, she has chosen to purchase a home
within walking distance from mine, which undermines her accusations of fear
and abuse.

Co-Parenting and Scheduling Conflicts:

Ms. Holmes frequently schedules appointments and extracurricular
activities during my parenting time, deliberately interfering with my
relationship with our daughter. Her failure to adhere to court-ordered
judgments and her attempts to create a negative image of me have been
noted.

Communication and Misrepresentation:

Ms. Holmes has misrepresented past incidents to paint a positive image of
herself while disregarding the importance of transparency and honest
communication in co-parenting.

Discussion of Custody Factors

Factor A: Emotional Ties

Holmes' Claims:
Ms. Holmes cites police reports and a personal protection order (PPO) to
question my emotional ties with our child.

Rebuttal:
These reports were not followed by investigations. Their existence serves as
a means for Ms. Holmes to create a negative paper trail against me without
substantive evidence.

Factor B: Religious Upbringing

Holmes' Claims:
Ms. Holmes accuses me of practicing an extreme version of Islam and
influencing our daughter’s religious beliefs.
Rebuttal:
Our mutual agreement during marriage was to raise our daughter as a
Muslim. I am committed to raising her with a strong moral foundation without
impeding her intellectual freedom, as emphasized in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406
U.S. 205 (1972).

Factor C: Health and Welfare

Holmes' Claims:
Ms. Holmes accuses me of neglecting our daughter's health needs,
particularly regarding a past concussion.

Rebuttal:
I have joint legal custody and prioritize my daughter’s health. Ms. Holmes
failed to communicate the necessity of follow-up appointments, which could
have been scheduled during her time.

Factor D: Stability and Environment

Holmes' Claims:
Ms. Holmes argues that I disrupt our daughter’s routine by not taking her to
school on Mondays.

Rebuttal:
Oversleeping is a normal occurrence in any household. To promote stability,
I propose a custody arrangement of joint physical custody, allowing Iman to
reside with each parent for six months at a time.

Factor E: Permanence of Home

Holmes' Claims:
Ms. Holmes asserts that her homeownership is more established than mine.

Rebuttal:
The purchase of her home on the same street as mine was intentional. My
proposal for joint physical custody ensures a balanced and stable
environment for Iman.

Factor F: Moral Fitness

Holmes' Claims:
Ms. Holmes alleges that I forced our daughter to access her iPad, leading to
police involvement.

Rebuttal:
 I exercised my parental right to inspect a device for safety reasons. Ms.
Holmes’ negligence in maintaining appropriate content on her devices
questions her moral fitness.

Factor G: Mental and Physical Health

Holmes' Claims:
Ms. Holmes questions my mental health and commitment to our daughter's
activities.

Rebuttal:
I am transparent about my mental health journey and have been gainfully
employed for 15 years. I support Iman’s activities and seek joint decision-
making regarding her extracurricular involvement.

Factor H: School and Community Record

Holmes' Claims:
Ms. Holmes accuses me of being late to pick up our daughter, causing
distress.

Rebuttal:
My work schedule may occasionally cause delays, but I prioritize my
daughter’s well-being. Ms. Holmes has removed my contact information from
school records, hindering communication.

Factor I: Child's Preference

Holmes' Claims:
Ms. Holmes alleges past abuse to sway custody decisions.

Rebuttal:
The absence of altercations since 2017 and Ms. Holmes' consistent
accusations highlight her intent to manipulate the situation rather than
reflect the truth.

Factor J: Encouraging Parent-Child Relationship

Holmes' Claims:
Ms. Holmes claims interference when I take Iman to Ohio to visit family.

Rebuttal:
I have informed Ms. Holmes of trips and maintain an open line of
communication. Her lack of cooperation and involvement with Iman’s
paternal family shows her unwillingness to support our child’s relationship
with both parents.
Factor L: Other Relevant Factors

Holmes' Claims:
Ms. Holmes uses police reports to justify her actions against me.

Rebuttal:
Ms. Holmes has filed reports without merit, infringing on my court-ordered
parenting time and fostering anxiety in our daughter. Her actions are
disruptive to the child’s stability and the parental relationship.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I, Maurice Smith-Davis, reaffirm my commitment to providing a

stable, nurturing environment for my daughter, Iman Davis. I respectfully
request that the court consider the above factors and evidence in support of
my petition for a change in domicile and joint physical custody, as it aligns
with the best interests of our child.

Further, Affiant Sayeth Not,

______________________

Smith-Davis, Maurice, Affiant/Declarant

All Rights Reserved, Without Prejudice, Without Recourse

Duty to Speak

Declarant/Affiant has no record or evidence that the recipients are not

parties claiming relationship and office, therefore having the duty to speak,
and therefore lawfully respond, and believes no such evidence exists.

Declarant/Affiant states that parties in receipt of this Notice who wish to

dispute or rebut claims of fact and understanding herein, or make
counterclaims thereto, must provide rebuttal in written form, point by point,
verified by certified documentation and accompanied by copies of lawful
evidence. Responses must be signed under oath and/or attestation written
under the signer's full commercial capacity and signed under penalty of
perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1746 stating that the facts contained in
your rebuttal are true, correct, and not misleading; mere declarations are
insufficient. Recipients have the lawful duty and obligation to respond as
described herein to the Notary Acceptor, at the address provided below, by
registered mail no later than thirty days (30) days from the date of receipt as
attested by a notary certificate of service, PS Form 3811, or verification by
electronic signature.
Non-response/partial response to this Notice is a dishonor and disregard of
duty, thus establishing acceptance and agreement as fact by default,
creating a valid and binding contract by tacit approval, silence, and
acquiescence. This establishes full and complete acceptance of all claims
herein and creates a permanent and irrevocable estoppel, forever barring
future counterclaims contemplating any claim or declaration herein, under
any Statute or Act.

A Notary Public has been used for timely and proper Notice as a courtesy to
prevent injury to recipients. Such use and that of Names or Titles,
Government, or Corporate Codes, Statutes, Acts, citations, case rulings, or
other private corporate regulations is coincidental and does not and shall not
be deemed an election to submit to a foreign jurisdiction, under real,
imagined, or implied consent, or to waive any rights, ownership, Interest,
title, claim, or defense(s).

Declarant/Affiant expresses all Notice(s), Claim(s), Averment(s), and

Understanding(s) herein to be true, complete, and correct to the best of his
current knowledge and understanding of the material presented, with full
transparency, in Good Faith, and without Malice, with the sole purpose and
inherent right to correct the record.

Date: August 5, 2024

Place of Claim of Right: 18647 Ohio Street, Detroit, MI [48221]

________________
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Declarant/Affiant: Maurice Smith-Davis

State of MICHIGAN )
) ss.
County of WAYNE )

SUBSCRIBED AND AFFIRMED: On this Fifth Day of August, 2024 AD, before
me __________________________, Notary Public, personally appeared Maurice
Smith-Davis, known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence of identification) to be the natural living man whose name is
subscribed on this NOTICE.

Witnessed by my hand and official stamp, signed, sealed, and delivered by

hand, drafted by the above-named Party.

____________________________________________ Seal/commission Notary Public

and Notary Acceptor
August 5, 2024