Findings re: APPOINTMENT OF COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATE A de jure government agent presumes to impose her/himself upon a private

natural person if one of three occurrences present: Exigent circumstances Consent Probable cause Both exigent circumstance and consent do not require the essential elements of a de jure warrant while probable cause does and is specifically addressed within the law at: The Constitution for the United States ( A D 1 7 8 9 - 1 7 9 1 ) Amendment 4 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The Constitution of Georgia (A.D. 1788) Article I. Section 1. Paragraph XIII: Searches, seizures, and warrants. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation particularly describing the place or places to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The "CASA" document expresses the following language: "Upon presentation of this Order, any________ shall permit the CASA who presents this order to inspect, copy any records....without consent be the child or child's parents." This "Order" is actually an "Appointment" ergo not a lawfully binding instrument upon anyone because it has none of the lawfully required elements as aforementioned. Specifically, the appointment contains no probable cause, no Oath or affirmation, and no particular description of that which is to be searched. Said document resembles a writ of assistance much more than that of a warrant. Please note the document's author attempt at deception by calling this appointment an order. Judge imposteur Alicia (Lisa) Coogle Rambo "orders" the "appointment" of one Ms. Lusane. The object of the appointment is Ms. Lusane only. No other parties are compelled by law to act in any way save one: When a healthcare professional is presented this appointment they must refuse it and tell Ms. Lusane that no searching of private documents is authorized without a de jure warrant issued from a de jure court and signed by a de jure Judge. This appointment is high evidence that Alicia (Lisa) Coogle Rambo intentionally seeks to avoid the laws aforementioned . Said appointment document is intended to intimidate healthcare workers into consensually and voluntarily allowing the CASA worker to search "any records". The juvenile court works upon the premise that consent is given for the "services" it offers. However, when consent is given as a direct result of intimidation then that consent is not freely given. Therefore, it is evident that Alicia Rambo is a contributing party violating due process and search laws that all Judges must support. Lisa's authorizing signature on this document makes her the most responsible party(among others) in this criminal act. Remember, the judicial canon, "Avoid the appearance of impropriety.".