Learn how to IMPEACH a Corrupt Judge for info about Title 28 and getting away from the sanctioned pre-set disposition of ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES...
QUOTE :
Go out to your car: See 'The Hand That Rocks Your Cradle'.
CPS Class Action has been under organization, as far as I noticed, for over a year.
My case happened in 2005 -2007 and the Oregon DHS tried to come and take my gran-baby because of the past. I fought back with the CPS (free) HANDBOOK. It worked. (Lawyers don't demand your rights). You must know what YOUR rights are and you must know how to demand them or just hear a Court Appointed Attorney say, "Yes, Massa" in your stead. A Court Appointed Attorney will 'JUST DO NOTHING' because he is an Officer of the Court and when you have one of those 'in' place of your own Personam, you become inPersonam, (WARD OF THE COURT) Person of unsound mind.
For a copy of the CPS (free) HANDBOOK write
e-for-mation@hotmail.com
This type of thing happens every dai in every Family Court in the US. Judges rule as they damn well please because they believe they are "above the law."
Plymouth mother fights court order against her disabled teen son Judge wants him to pay child support from his SSI checks, which are exempt.
By NANCY J. SULOK Tribune Staff Writer
PLYMOUTH — Kathy O’Leary’s teenage son is threatened with jail for failing to pay child support from his Supplemental Security Income, but she thinks the Marshall Circuit Court judge is wrong.
And the law might be on her side.
Her son, Justin Whitt, is disabled from a traffic accident that happened two years ago in northwest Marshall County. The accident killed a 17-year-old girl who was driving the car carrying Whitt and another boy.
Whitt suffered a closed head injury that left him permanently disabled, O’Leary said. She has documentation from a doctor and a speech pathologist that says he has problems with short-term memory, word retrieval, confusion, impulsiveness and angry outbursts.
He is 18 now and likely will be unemployable for the rest of his life, O’Leary said. Although he worked in a fast-food restaurant before the accident, she said, his doctor would not release him to return to work.
Whitt’s only income is $441 a month from Supplemental Security Income. He continues to live with his mother, who is his legal guardian.
Despite his disabilities, O’Leary said, Whitt fathered a child that was born in October 2006.
Once paternity was confirmed in March, Circuit Judge Michael D. Cook ordered Whitt to pay child support.
O’Leary believes Cook’s order violates the Child Support Rules and Guidelines of the Indiana Rules of Court.
His decision also might be contrary to the federal Social Security rules, which state flatly that “Supplemental Security Income payments cannot be levied or garnished.”
The state court rules spell out the kinds of income that can be taken into account for calculating child support, including gross salary or wages; potential income if unemployed or underemployed; commissions; bonuses; dividends, interest; unemployment benefits; and disability insurance benefits.
But they specifically exclude “benefits from means-tested public assistance programs, including, but not limited to Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income and food stamps.”
SSI is her son’s only income, O’Leary said.
Cook said he could not discuss the case or allow inspection of the court file because of the confidential nature of paternity cases.
But The Tribune obtained a copy of an order signed by Cook on July 16 that says Whitt must pay support, while also acknowledging that his only income is from SSI.
The judge’s order noted that a hearing held in March 2007 attributed both parents with weekly wages of $210. Cook wrote that Whitt continued to be unemployed in July “and claims to be incapable of working.”
The baby’s mother, meanwhile, had taken a job and was earning $310 a week. “She lives at home with her parents and incurs no daycare expense at this time,” Cook wrote.
Meanwhile, he noted, Whitt was $1,353 behind in his payments as of July 13.
The judge also noted that O’Leary “has been paying bills from his monies but has not taken responsibility for seeing that his support obligation is paid.”
Cook ordered Whitt to pay $41 a week in support, plus an extra $9 toward the arrearage. He also ordered Whitt to pay $400 toward the arrearage by the end of August.
The baby’s mother, Cook wrote, “has on occasion failed to provide parenting time to the father as was previously agreed.” He ordered her to start obeying the court’s visitation guidelines.
Whitt and the baby’s mother were to be responsible for their own attorney fees, Cook ruled.
Last month, the mother sought to bring Whitt back to court to explain why he had not obeyed the judge’s order. Whitt did not show up, and O’Leary said his attorney claimed he never received notice of the hearing. As a result, Cook had Whitt arrested in early December for failure show up, and he ordered him to pay $1,500 immediately.
The latest payment schedule, O’Leary said, calls for Whitt to pay $400 by Jan. 2 for part of the arrearage; $300 by the end of January; then $275 a month in support starting in February. He also reversed his early decision about attorney fees and ordered Whitt to pay the costs for the mother’s lawyer.
“This is totally unfair,” O’Leary said.
She said she also is disabled and also receives SSI. O’Leary said she pools her income with her son’s, which together total about $1,100 a month.
Her son’s income, she said, pays for the four medications he takes, plus transportation to and from LaVille High School, where he is enrolled in special education for three hours a day.
His checks also pay for food and clothing, as well as some household expenses, including utility bills, she said. Whitt also incurs expenses when his son visits, for food, diapers, transportation and other incidental things.
Whitt’s $441 a month doesn’t go very far, she said. The judge’s order would leave him only $166, or roughly $41.50 a week, to live on.
O’Leary said Cook has disregarded all of the evidence she has presented in court on behalf of her son, including a copy of the child support guidelines that list the prohibition against using SSI payments.
She also provided Cook with medical records confirming that Whitt cannot work, she said, and with a copy of a 2004 decision from the Indiana Court of Appeals in a similar case.
That case, Walter McGill vs. Jayne Franklin McGill, was heard originally in Lawrence County in southern Indiana.
The McGills had a baby in August 1988 and divorced in November 1990. Walter paid his support regularly through 1997, court records say.
The Social Security Administration determined in 2002 that he was eligible for SSI. He also was receiving monthly disability payments.
On April 29, 2003, after a hearing, a judge ordered Walter to pay support of $20 a week plus $5 extra toward his $9,110 arrearage.
Walter appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to pay support that “deprives him of the means of self-support at a minimum subsistence level.” Paying the support would result in him “losing his housing and going hungry,” he contended.
The Appeals Court agreed.
It cited another court case that noted, “SSI is a federal social welfare program designed to assure that the recipient’s income is maintained at a level viewed by Congress as the minimum necessary for the subsistence of that individual.”
In order to get SSI, the case continued, a person must prove he is unable to “do any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment.” Furthermore, it noted that SSI payments are specifically excluded from a parent’s income for computing child support.
On the other hand, the court noted, disability benefits are different and can be included in a parent’s weekly gross income for determining support payments. Whitt does not receive disability benefits, O’Leary said.
Walter’s combined income was $572 a month, and his living expenses (housing costs, utilities, etc.) amounted to $500 a month, leaving him only $72 for food and other basic needs.
For a portion of his income to be diverted for child support would undercut his minimum support guarantee that the programs intended, the court ruled. Even a child support payment of $15 a week ($60 a month) would leave him only $12 a month for food and other basic needs, the court said.
The Lawrence County court’s “judgment is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances,” the Appeals Court said.
O’Leary feels the same way about Judge Cook’s rulings. She said she will continue to fight it.
Staff writer Nancy J. Sulok: nsulok@sbtinfo.com (574) 235-6234
Send me an IM Plus: Clue about my Fixation, Fixation!
To get away from ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES with a preset disposition as allowed in Title 28 watch the video about IMPEACHING A JUDGE WITH A PRE SET DISPOSITION.
Termination of Parental Rights -The most basic issues are:
We cannot have Constitutional government if we do not have Constitutional Courts. Roger Weidner
Bureaucrat Protection is not Child Protection Marilyn LeBaron
Announcing Content or Prejudice March
http://cid-0009ccb030dda459. events. live. com/default. aspx
Termination of Parental Rights is Equivalentto the Death Penalty. When one person can walk through your front door, take your children, keep them, bill you too, pass the laws that empower them, and then not give you a grand jury indictment, when a tip from a anonymous person was never faced in open court, while attorneys do not demand trial by jury, and then pass all the statutes, regulations, and policies, which are repugnant and deliberately designed to circumvent, ignore the supreme law, the ones judges swear to uphold and defend, we are caused to loose all our inalienable rights, which defined our citizenship. If we have no citizen ship we have no alliance with our national origin and are in fact alienated to that which is our natural inherent birthright. These violations of our American Due Process Rights are compounded by judges, psychologists, and attorneys violating the Separation of Powers defined in the Federalist Papers Article 86 by being a member of one branch of government that controls the other while gaining the position of god from the opinion of one man.
http://journals. aol. com/blawgwar/blawgwar/
All Rights Reserved
Without Prejudice
UCC 1-308
Marilyn LeBaron
Impeach Corrupt Judges Now - ( - K.I.S.S. HOW TO - )
Movies
Get the word out!!!!!!!!!!
Impeach Corrupt Judges Now - ( - K.I.S.S. HOW TO - )
From: Ron Paul 2008
Date: Jan 4, 2008 1:51 PM
Dear Friends and Supporters of Ron Paul,
As I have seen many videos regarding why Ron Paul is the finest candidate for President, this one turned out to be excellent at youtube.com/watch?v=5uk-T46soz8
I admit, it did not stick out as great by watching the first part of the video. The soldier speaking referred to Huckabee as a Senator and that raised a red flag because Huckabee was never a Senator and that bothered me so much, I mistakenly bypassed it at the first few dozen referrals. Eventually, when I received the link for what was probably the hundredth time, I just let it roll. I urge you to do the same.
It's actually full of passion, unrehearsed and his frustration should not be confused with being inarticulate. This man hits the nail on the head with a bang.
This soldier is deeply engaged in what is REALLY going on, especially when it comes to the wrong reasons we are at war. This soldier is a true patriot. I urge all to spend the time to listen to this man who has obviously served our country and who is echoing the true sentiments of other soldiers.
Thank you for your time and support.
Warm Regards, Greg Chamberlain MySpace Moderator for Ron Paul MySpace.Com/RonPaul2008
RE: Mike Huckabee is NOT a conservative by any measure -You Tube
RE: A Soldier Shares His Thoughts on The War and Ron Paul
From: Craobhruadh
Date: Jan 4, 2008 3:14 PM
From: Southern Avenger Date: 04 Jan 2008, 21:20
Re Posted Please do the same for mine.
RE: Check out this event: 2nd Annual UWT MLK Day Unity Breakfast
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: BSU @ UWT
Date: Jan 4, 2008 4:57 PM
Hosted By: UWT and Black Student Union When: Monday Jan 21, 2008 at 8:00 AM Where: Longshoreman’s Hall 1710 Market St. Tacoma, WA 98402 United States Description: UWT and Black Student Union
RE: Happy New Year w/ New Year Politics
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Judge_the_Bench
Date: Jan 2, 2008 2:42 PM
on MySpaceIM you can get it here www.myspace.com/myspaceim my username is benchthejudge
War Pig
RE: Kucinich files complaint on ABC debate
From: Jerry {Inciting Dissent}
Date: Jan 4, 2008 5:11 PM
----------------- Bulletin Message ----------------- From: Anjie M Date: Jan 4, 2008 7:07 PM
By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
NEW YORK - Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich filed a complaint with the FCC on Friday after ABC News excluded him, fellow Democrat Mike Gravel and Republican Duncan Hunter from its prime-time debates on Saturday. ADVERTISEMENT
Kucinich argued that ABC is violating equal-time provisions by keeping him out of the debate and noted that ABC's parent Walt Disney Co. had contributed to campaigns involving the four Democrats who were invited.
"ABC should not be the first primary," the Ohio congressman said in papers filed at the Federal Communications Commission.
ABC said the candidates left out of the debates failed to meet benchmarks for their support that were outlined to each campaign prior to the Iowa caucus. Kucinich did not complain about these rules ahead of time, said spokeswoman Cathie Levine, who had no further comment since she hasn't seen the FCC filing.
ABC said it hoped to encourage more conversation and interaction among the candidates during the debates, which will both be moderated by Charles Gibson. The stakes are high as candidates take the stage three days before the New Hampshire primary.
The Republican debate will include Iowa caucus winner Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. It starts at 7 p.m. EST.
Shortly after that 90-minute forum, Democrats Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Bill Richardson will take the stage at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H.
The network set rules to narrow the field. Candidates had to meet at least one of three criteria: place first through fourth in Iowa, poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major New Hampshire surveys, or poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major national surveys.
Democrats Joe Biden and Chris Dodd took some of the pressure off ABC by quitting the race Thursday night.
"In previous debates where the stage was more crowded you had to make sure all of the candidates got fair time," said David Chalian, ABC News political director. "Here you will have more time to go in depth on the issues."
ABC said it believed its rules were inclusive, while also ensuring viewers get a thorough look at the probable next president.
"We're regretful that we're not going to be in it," said Roy Tyler, a spokesman for Hunter. "We're just going to keep working. I think it's a mistake on their part to exclude any viable candidate at this point."
Fox News Channel is sponsoring a debate in its mobile studio Sunday that excludes Paul and Hunter. Huckabee, Giuliani, Romney, Thompson and McCain have been invited.
Each debate will be divided into two parts. During the first 45 minutes, Gibson will select three prominent issues to promote a dialogue. The candidates will be seated and encouraged to talk to each other, and not just to the cameras, Gibson said.
"If I have any personal prejudice against these debates, it's that you see too much of the moderator," Gibson said. "I want to see less of the moderator and more of the candidates."
There won't be any buzzers or lights on the stage to mark time limits for talking, putting the pressure on Gibson to limit filibusters and promote fairness.
The second half of the debate will be a more traditional format, with Gibson and WMUR-TV political director Scott Spradling asking questions on a variety of topics. Candidates will be asked to keep their answers to a minute, Chalian said.
Gibson said he hoped to have a few minutes where both Republican and Democratic candidates are on the same stage, to promote the idea that despite differences, all are Americans hoping for the best for their country. The auditorium will be quickly emptied between debates and a new audience brought in.
Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos will lead ABC's coverage. Three hours of live debate with both Republican and Democratic candidates represents a grueling on-air test for Gibson, ABC's chief news anchor.
"I didn't volunteer," he said. "It's something new, it's something different. I can fail miserably at this and may well do so but we're looking for some ways to do something different."
___
ABC is owned by The Walt Disney Co. Fox is a unit of News Corp.
RE: SPAM ALERT~~ SPAM ALERT ~~ SOS ~SOS~
RE: SPAM ALERT~~ SPAM ALERT ~~ SOS ~SOS~
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Evr Dance w Devil? CPS!! Vote RON PAUL 2008 !!!!!!
Date: Jan 2, 2008 6:48 AM
If anyone got a message from ME that a Friend said bad things about them on a Blog.. etc..etc.. IT IS SPAM!!!!!!!
when you click on it.. it will then be sent out to your entire FRIEND LIST!..
such childishness Nonsense to say the least..
GEEZ!!!!!!!!!
RE: YouTube Segment of Ron Paul on MSNBC with NORA O'Donnell
Re Posted Please do the same for mine.
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Ron Paul 2008
Date: Jan 2, 2008 12:23 PM
Dear Ron Paul Supporters,
Below is a link to the YouTube Segment of Ron Paul on MSNBC with NORA O'Donnell from earlier this morning.
Warm Regards, Greg Chamberlain MySpace Moderator for Ron Paul
Impeach Corrupt Judges Now - ( - K.I.S.S. HOW TO - )
Heroes
Get the word out!!!!!!!!!!
A Violation of the Separations of Powers is Not Legislation.
A Judicial act of Legislation is a Violation of the Separation of Powers according to Article 86 of the Federalist Papers.
http://www.constitutionalguardian.com
Same Hands Control makes a Judge a King...
America is not a Monarchy...
Michael C Sullivan is not a 'King'... He is a Judge in Deschutes county passing laws while acting as judge over the same matters the laws he passes directly influence.
EXHIBIT: Custody and Parenting Time Assessment - Modest Means
http://www.deschutes-court.ojd.state.or.us/Forms/memotobar.pdf
This may seem like a harmless piece of legislation but it is not. He has handed his Power Seat to SOCIAL SERVICES who directly affect the Adoption Industry Process and are the Assessor, petitioner, 'a Childs' voice, when they knock on your door to handle a call assigned by the Child Abuse Hotline, who your opponent can directly influence.
So you are really in a tangled web of DUPLICIT violation of the Separations of Powers there, too. Since the CPS have 'Judicial Powers' and can over turn a 'Close Case' if the Child Abuse Hotline does not assign the case to them and a game of Here we go round the mulberry bush begins and no Attorney will contest any of it. They are in violation of the Separations of Powers, too being a member of the BAR Association.
http://contentorprejudice.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!37BB0E45A704ED26!115.entry?action=post&wa=wsignin1.0
This is not another replay of the 9/11 tragedy, rather a testiment to those who are striving to expose evil and put a stop to the evil running rampant in our world
We Are Change is working relentlessly to assist these heroes who are sick and dying today
$$$$$$$ ____ Adoptions mean Federal Dollars ____ $$$$$$$
Get the word out!!!!!!!!!!
Impeach Corrupt Judges Now - ( - K.I.S.S. HOW TO - )
Here is the video we all need watch so we can see and prove we do not have an advocate in the BAR Association.
Challenge to Nancy Pelosi, Robert Wexler and Alcee Hastings
(EXTENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST FLORIDA PUBLIC OFFICES)
Mark Foley, has drawn the attention of the Democrats and anyone who has the least knowledge of the Foley problems, no matter how inconsequential, if a Republican should, per many, resign from office. Some should. But this is small potatoes as it involves the failings of one man.
If these Democrats want to crusade on officials' federal crime, start with Florida and Palm Beach County which both Robert Wexler and Alcee Hastings represent and on the corrupt Florida Bar of which strangely each is a member (strangely as Robert Wexler has an impeccable record and Alcee Hastings is an impeached and convicted federal judge who was removed from office for taking bribes and corruption).
A considerable number of the Florida state representatives and state senators that I did not talk to for they cared not to learn of corrupt Florida judges, and did so en masse with no exceptions by party rule it seems, are now in the U.S. Congress, male and female.
It is now more than ten years since the first judicial failures in ruling against corrupt judges began.
It is well past time for an answer to be given.
See the other posts and write if you want to defend the canard that "Judges have absolute immunity" so get over it. That is false as we all know but act as if judges are untouchable.
Anyone may comment or write me at my Google mail,
fight.the.corrupt@gmail.com
but no one should just do nothing, for that is how we got to where we are as a nation---indifference.
Will they post this on John Edward’s Blog Comment?
The above address is where I found your comment.
Lets see if John Edwards Moderator will post it for publication!
To sign the petition (130,000 signed so far) Democrats.com was excited to announce Rep. Robert Wexler's campaign to demand impeachment hearings for Dick Cheney. Wexler's goal was 50,000 signatures but with your support, Wexler's petition passed 100,000!
http://www.wexlerwantshearings.com
Vietnam - War Pigs
Music video about Vietnam was featuring War Pigs by Black Sabbath
Are you ready for the challange to take back our families.
Can this happen to you?
Has it happened to you?
We are coming together for the broken families to bring awareness to the important issues tearing families apart.
DC Festival 2008 is a culmination of parents, grandparents, and extended family members coming together to celebrate the most precious gift of our lives and that is the gift of FAMILY.
It will focus on overcoming the societal pressures that interfere with family and its relationships. DC Festival 2008 will celebrate Motherhood, Fatherhood, and Grandparenthood as we appeal nationwide for the recognition, respect and protection of this most sacred gift.
The children of our great nation are our future...We must strengthen the family and its relationships for the sake of our future.
Join us at the Upper Senate Park on August 15-17 2008 to celebrate the greatest gift of all....FAMILY!!!
For more information visit us at
www.dcfestival2008.com
Category: Nonprofits & Activism
Tags: DC rally 2008 Family CPS parental alienation preservation Shared parenting equal divorce child custody
It says:
SNAKE ON MY CONSTITUTION
I ............did not deserve the DEATH PENALTY!
Did you? Did they?
Child Protective Services needs reform at the bench!
IMPEACH A JUDGE TODAY! Judge the bench @ hotmail . com
This article, which I have been publishing onto blog sites and e-mailing to Polk County, regarding Polk County, to our Presidential Candidates, to Movie Producers, to Pastors, the news broadcasting agencies, the media, and various organizations, etc... contains links to my political complaint. I need the arguments pasted into my Blogs taken from there, put into proper from pursuant to the interpretations at Constitutional Law, and filed upon Polk County Circuit Court. I do not know how to do this nor do I believe if I did my efforts would have any impact as Judges prefer homage to technicalities over the value of human life... I do not know enough to go about Arbitration pursuant to in Propria Persona though I have been called a true Belligerent Claimant, which I am.
I have included in this email to you some of the people I contact on a regular basis which, include the agencies you will need to contact, and request that all communication with any agency or party adjoined in this action be contacted in the written formant only. I would appreciate that if you do contact me by phone that I receive a transcript of said conversation accompanied by a tape recording of our exchange. I have kept, in its entirety, 99% of all my contact with any party in this matter fully documentation regarding these cses in said manner and do not wish to have undocumented verbal communication for any reason.
I have submitted to you a good portion of the collected writings of several entities concerned with the condition of the Child Protective Services, and if I may bring to your attention hundreds of petitions circulating to abolish that agency and the fact that there has been a date set for a rally in Washington DC to Demand Congress talk immediate action providing remedies for her people. There are also reports from the FBI that child molestation is prevalent among foster homes, even worse that what was found in the natural parents environment.
There is too much information to put into one e-mail so I have included that which I found to be the most relevant information useful in my defense. I don not want this to continue to prejudice me for the damages I have sustained from 'small town social circles' is completely unjust and keeps me in a constant state of duress and said state is evident also in the lives of my children and that of my grand baby...
In witness thereof
subject to UCC 1-308
Marilyn LeBaron
in Propria Persona.
subject to UCC 1-308
Thomas Alexander Bleu LeBaron
in Propria Persona.
subject to UCC 1-308
Melanie LeBaron
in Propria Persona her hand assigned to me for the purposes of including her name in Affidavits.
and her baby, Victoria Couvillion, pursuant to UCC 1-308, who by assign am her Power of Attorney in Fact until further notice which allows me to include her name in any Affidavit since her mother has not understanding of matters pertaining to her inalienable rights.
The following items, which bellow, are as inventoried here:
1. Provide Feedback for: "Grandparent's Rights" should not exist..
2. A REQUEST THAT YOU CONSIDER MY CASE.
3. HERE IS THE VOICE OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT BEEN HEARD.
4. EXAMPLE affidavit is from the CPS Handbook Provided by William Dixon
5. Yeah........It is all true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6. Belligerent Claimant in Propria Persona by Special Visitation
7. Dear Angela, A letter from George Warm advising her of the Separation of Power's Breech at the county level abrogating us from our due process rights.
Provide Feedback for: "Grandparent's Rights" should not exist..
This message will be sent to this petition's sponsor, Cindy Meijer.
This message will be sent on behalf of Marilyn LeBaron,
jesushealedmetoo@hotmail.com. If this is not you, please log out
Dear Cindy Meijer,
If this petition was more specific I would sign it but it does not cover all the arguments and gives the judiciary too much power over prejudice, like in my case.
Please read the following articles and political complaints and let me know how and why this petition came about.
Please start here: This will give you a good idea of why family could be a good thing.
Next please verify by calling the numbers in this article, 'The Truth About The Child Welfare Industry', Posted by Real American at:
http://www.myspace.com/repealthe17th
CHILD SEX TRADE INDUSTRY
Southern California FBI District has videotape recorded CPS workers placing foster care children onto planes via LAX, destination Europe for child sex trade industry. This can be verified through Ted Gunderson, (retired) FBI Director Southern California (310) 477-6565.
SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION IN FOSTER CARE
For the families in relation to our group in San Bernardino County, it has come to our attention while comparing similarities, that approximately half the children in foster care have been molested.
These children were not sexually abused by their parents, but by the foster fathers or others in the foster home. It was also noted that these foster homes are still operating in the same capacity prior to complaints, without any investigation into these allegations. C.P.S officials were made aware of these accusations by the children, but failed to follow through with a criminal investigation.
In conclusion, Child Protective Service is nothing more than an "oasis'' for child molesters, to make a profit, while at the same time committing a crime, only to be protected by a malignant system that delivers a never ending supply of victims.
Here is an article about why the CPS Needs Reform:
http://www.jbs.org/node/4632
Here is my political complaint: Well, one of them,
http://journals.aol.com/reformcps/RULE-53-REFORM-BLAWG-LAW-OAR-ORS/
This is an ongoing case in Florida about Greg Pound and his four children being taken for a dog bit to one of his youngest and the dog was not being vicious when the 'bite' took place. I call Greg Pound the 'Modern Day Joan of Ark'
www.freeourkids.com
The 'Child Protection Services Fixer uper' provides many remedies to the problems in Social Services http://www.petitiononline.com/families/petition.html My endorsement is number 666 as follows:
666. Marilyn LeBaron Injustice in the name of Law & Order Under the Color of Law is Collusion. This petition has been served upon Polk County Circuit Court, 850 Main, Dallas, Oregon 97338, by CERTIFIED MAIL 70051820000472619325 & TMSFMS by Registered Mail # RA374647815US Re: 7163J-(DHS adlib at CRB) & O5P2176. Autocrat perjury is worth more to DA than justice. They have committed these enumerated violations to my family. Perjury is resultant in loss of 'Life' and 'Liberty' (x3+): I called 911, ‘State Police’, to report DHS circumvention of OAR as DHS came & took my teen by surprise. DHS said, “No Contact Order”(lie): IPD ignore the falsity. DHS, in 01-05, took a Release of Info from me, tell lies in report: “She won’t let us talk to her doctor”. Complaints thereto used to gain ‘second set’ of double continuances, one criminal/911 call: is dropped: No ‘ORDER’ of dismiss mailed: No bearing on Relief or ‘Life’? DA's false Oath: “Mother will attack PG woman at trial to Subpoena my Dr: Re: 'ILSUP/Colombo'. I approve this petition! AO 97351 Marilyn LeBaron
Consider these cases then let me know what happened to cause you to protest 'kinship' having rights to their bloodline. Then consider what would happen if a grandparent does not have the option to be next of kin if a parent is unfit.
I think it is important to have a bloodline and blood ties because of all the sexual molestation reportedly going on in Foster Homes.
UCC 1-308
Marlin LeBaron
JOIN MY BLOG GROUP: Police for the Oath of Office
http://groups.myspace.com/oathofoffice
------------------
A REQUEST THAT YOU CONSIDER MY CASE.
PLEASE WHILE YOU CONSIDER MY CASE PLEASE CONSIDER THERE ARE MAY PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT WILL RESPECT MY BEING DEFENDED BY YOU FIRM AND YOUR REPUTATION WOULD NOT BE SOURED.
HERE IS THE VOICE OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT BEEN HEARD. HERE ARE THE VOICES OF OUR CHILDREN, ALIENATED FROM THEIR PARENTS AND SENT INTO DARK PLACES NOBODY WANTS TO THINK ABOUT.
BABY TRAFFICKING
http://www.myspace.com/repealthe17th
False Allegations of drug abuse have been logged against mothers and their newborn infants as a means to place these infants into protective custody. The hospital staff has allowed C.P.S to remove infants (a hospital violation) prior to verification of blood and urine drug screen tests. C.P.S is mandated to secure verification of drug allegations via blood and urine results, prior to removing the newborn infant from the hospital. All cases known to us resulted negative for the mother and the newborn, but these infants were never returned, and were adopted outside of kinship.
In the past year, the FBI has arrested and imprisoned C.P.S workers who were actively involved in baby trafficking for profit. These C.P.S workers knowingly abducted infants from the hospital where they in turn networked them into legal adoption agencies. Augustus Fennerty, FBI director for Crimes against Children (Washington D.C) can verify this information. (202) 324-3000
CHILD SEX TRADE INDUSTRY
Southern California FBI District has videotape recorded CPS workers placing foster care children onto planes via LAX, destination Europe for child sex trade industry. This can be verified through Ted Gunderson, (retired) FBI Director Southern California (310) 477-6565.
SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION IN FOSTER CARE
For the families in relation to our group in San BernardinoCounty, it has come to our attention while comparing similarities, that approximately half the children in foster care have been molested.
These children were not sexually abused by their parents, but by the foster fathers or others in the foster home. It was also noted that these foster homes are still operating in the same capacity prior to complaints, without any investigation into these allegations. C.P.S officials were made aware of these accusations by the children, but failed to follow through with a criminal investigation.
In conclusion, Child Protective Service is nothing more than an "oasis'' for child molesters, to make a profit, while at the same time committing a crime, only to be protected by a malignant system that delivers a never ending supply of victims
SYSTEMATIC FRAUDULENT MANEUVERS UTILIZED TO ENHANCE C.P.S BUDGETv
* C.P.S manufactures multiple nonexistent /fictitious abuse case scenarios to offset true statistical abuse case information.
* C.P.S concurrently processes these children from foster care to adoption, in order to obtain perverse monetary incentives in the form of bonuses.
* C.P.S provides a market to neighboring agencies and the courts (commissioners, psychologists, monitors, court mandated behavioral class instructors, court appointed legal counsel), in order for them to financially benefit from the foster care/adoption system.
* C.P.S victimizes innocent impoverished families, draws them into a corrupt system to utilize their children as pawns for commerce.
MALICIOUS OPERATIVE TECHNIQUES
* C.P.S is utilized by family court officials, as an adverse tool to extricate children from one parent to the other, with reference to "parent alienation syndrome".
* Where, in truth, caseworkers are never allowed to testify in family court under the cloak of C.P.S authority, due to possible misuse or conflict of interest related to the right to privacy laws.
* C.P.S utilizes coercive measures to persuade parents to submit to statements of prior alleged abuse, when these actions were nonexistent. In other words, forcing desperate parents to "plea bargain" to a C.P.S fabricated crime, for the return of their children from foster care.
* C.P.S fabricates portions of investigations, where such duties have never been physically performed, to purposely mislead or direct a case.
* C.P.S knowingly abandons children into foster care, conscious of the fact that some foster care parents and or individuals in the home physically and sexually abuse the children in their protective custody.
* C.P.S intentionally fails to prosecute parents accused of child abuse, since in the majority of cases, no initial crime has been committed.
* C.P.S represents themselves in positive personas, by omitting, altering, and falsifying documents, so as to mislead the public and or government of their true actions as listed above. Thereby publicly grandstanding, displaying an inaccurate social martyrdom for the well being of children.
* C.P.S ignores crimes committed in foster care, such as the atrocious acts of unexplained deaths.
* C.P.S fails to question these individuals for their abusive conduct, whereby, if it were not a foster care parent, these individuals would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
SHOULD CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICE BE RESTRUCTURED?
The police should determine if a child has a true need for protection from his parents, since child abuse is a criminal offence. Thus, C.P.S should be incorporated with Crimes against Children Units that are currently located within police, sheriffs and FBI agencies.
The merging of the two would reduce the amount of false allegations reported, since complaints made to a police unit is a criminal offence. Also, the police have the training and resources needed to conduct a thorough investigation. This allows them to determine that if a crime has been committed that warrants the need for foster care.
A parent/guardian under the suspicion of the crime "Child Abuse" would meet the criteria for removal. This would activate the foster care system. Only then would the foster care system be utilized as a response to a possible or suspected crime.
Thus in turn, this would eliminate the unnecessary utilization of the foster care system that has been grossly misused in the past. Unwarranted victimization of children and their families would be greatly reduced and soaring costs would be contained. This would minimize the number of future cases that fall through the cracks and get lost in the system.
WHAT ROLE SHOULD THE SOCIAL WORKERS PLAY IN THE NEW CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICE?
* All caseworkers must have a bachelor's degree in social work from an accredited college.
* All states must create bachelor level licensing for social workers.
* All workers must have a current license to work within any state or county in the United States with reciprocity.
* All social workers must have a preceptor for at least three months prior to individual casework.
WHO SHOULD BE A MEMBER OF THE CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICE TEAM WITHIN THE CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN UNITS?
Other members from various agencies should be inclusive to this unit, since they bring their specific expertise to complete a proper investigation. It is our opinion that the following individuals who should comprise this team are as stated: Registered Nurse, School Principal, Detective, and Social Worker.
SHOULD AN OUTSIDE AGENCY SYSTEMATICALLY REVIEW THE CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICE TEAM'S PERFORMANCE?
All agencies must have an outside quality control board that monitors case investigations on a random basis and when requested by the public. This Board must include members similar to the Child Protective Service team, with the addition of an individual from the public. No member may be employed more than three years, to maintain the integrity of the boards' unbiased decisions.
SHOULD WE MAINTAIN A CHILD ABUSE INDEX LIST?
The child abuse index list shall be maintained only when an individual has been prosecuted and convicted by a court of law for a crime against a child. Today's said list shall be destroyed, so as to prevent harm to those currently listed who have been accused of a crime against a child, but that have never been prosecuted or convicted. And, children should never be placed on any list that would categorize them in an adverse manner, such as this.
SHOULD THERE BE NEW RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO FOSTER CARE?
There should be a limited number of children allowed to be placed in any single home under foster care, including adoption. No single family shall be allowed to adopt or provide foster care to more than two children at any time. The only exception shall be when siblings number more than two and are placed in the same single dwelling. This will eliminate the financial incentive for monetary gain related to housing foster children and adoptions.
Redlands, California 92373
Yucaipa, California 92399
July 12, 2004
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-0542
NOTES: This EXAMPLE affidavit is from the CPS Handbook, which is posted below. Author of affidavit is not responsible for its use.
To: LIST ALL Agent’s individually
LIST ALL ADDRESSES individually
Rancho Cordova, Ca. 95741-2966
Michael
address
city, state [95555]
Certified Post &#;
RE: in reference to
AFFIDAVIT of SPECIAL VISITATION
KNOW ALL MEN AND WOMEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that Affiant, Name of affiant, a natural living, breathing, man on the land being of sound mind and FIRST BEING DULY SWORN, willfully and voluntarily deposes and says, and as
ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICE:
a) I, Name of affiant, am competent to handle matters and for stating the matters set forth herein and all matters must be expressed to be resolved.
b) I, Name of affiant, have personal knowledge concerning the facts stated herein.
c) All the facts stated herein are true, correct, complete, and certain, not misleading, made in good faith, admissible as evidence, and if stating as I, Name of affiant, shall so state.
FACT EXAMPLES HERE
FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of any law, which would deprive affiant or family of any Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States of America, which would force compliance or demand that we incriminate ourselves.
FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of evidence, which demonstrates that there are exigent circumstances relative to the health of the children.
FACT: Affiant is not a defendant in any action pending review, nor is Affiant standing as the accused in a criminal action.
FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of any document which purports to prove that Name is willfully meriting contempt or dishonorably disobeying a “lawful court order.”
FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of any lawful court order with “Seal and teste of process” affixed thereto.
FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of any document that absent “consent, a warrant, probable cause, or exigent circumstances,” is not an unreasonable search and seizure and in violation My NAME and MY CHILDS NAME. [1]
FACT. Affiant is not in receipt of any document which purports to claim that I First Last-named, am not capable of “protecting (my) children’s interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents.” [2]
FACT. Affiant, First Last-named is not in receipt of any process, which “must be afforded every procedural and substantive protection the law allows.” [3]
FACT: Affiant is aware that any “mere possibility or risk of harm does not constitute an emergency or exigent circumstance that would justify a forced warrantless entry and a warrantless seizure of a child.” [4]
FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of an instrument that purports that “a state-required breakup of a natural family is founded solely on a “best interests” analysis that is not supported by the requisite proof of parental unfitness.” [5]
FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of an instrument that purports that I, First Last-name, have not reserved my rights to have “inadmissible hearsay testimony” stricken from the court record. [6]
FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of any probable cause that would purport that I, First Last-name, am incapable as a “fit parent” or that I am not capable of acting in my “children's best interests.” [7]
FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of any “compelling interest for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question fit parents' ability to make the best decisions regarding their children.” [8]
FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of any instrument granting the state authority to “interfere in child rearing decisions when a fit parent is available.” [9]
FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of standards or “context of parents care, control, and maintenance, i.e. spending, i.e. child discipline decisions, on behalf of his or her children.” [10]
FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of any document which precludes “the government’s interest” in “protecting children's interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents." [11]
FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of a “cause shown” which purports that, “an anonymous tip standing alone amounts to probable cause.” [12]
FACT: Affiant is aware that federal funds are available to your agency, but “the ultimate federal mandate is the Constitution of the United States” and failure to acquire consent prior to contact with my family would be a violation thereof. [13]
FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of the Fourth Amendment requirement and court standard that “probable cause” exists to search our domicile or seize a family member or child. [14]
Fact: Affiant is not aware of any alleged abuse or neglect by “government officials” that would cause them to devise an “emergency” or unlawful and unconstitutional investigation. [15]
FACT: Affiant is aware that “qualified immunity” is not available to a social worker and a police officer “absence of emergency”, “coerced entry into a home to investigate suspected child abuse, interrogation of a child, and strip search of a child, conducted without a search warrant and without a special exigency.” [16]
FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of any statute that enables a child welfare investigation "without a warrant even under statutory authority where probable cause existed.” [17]
FACT: Affiant is aware that “absent some tangible evidence of abuse or neglect, the Courts do not authorize fishing expeditions into citizens’ houses” and “mere parroting of the phrase ‘best interest of the child’ without supporting facts and a legal basis is insufficient to support a Court order based on reasonableness or any other ground.” [18]
FACT: Affiant is aware that “Consent” that is the product of official intimidation or harassment is not consent at all. Citizens do not forfeit their constitutional rights when they are coerced to comply with a request that they would prefer to refuse. [19]
FACT: Affiant is aware that coercive or intimidating behavior supports a reasonable belief that compliance is compelled. [20] Coercion can be mental as well as physical. [21]
FACT: Affiant is aware that it is not enough to have information that the children are in some form of serious danger. The evidence must also pass a test of reliability that our justice system calls probable cause. The court held that an anonymous tip standing alone never amounts to probable cause. [22]
Fact: Affiant is not in receipt of any witness testimony and has not been “informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.” [23]
FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of any decision that states that it is a constitutional practice to remove children, which results in punishing the children and the non-offending parent. [24]
FACT: Affiant is aware that “Children have a Constitutional right to live with their parents without government interference.” [25]
FACT: Affiant is aware that “a child has a constitutionally protected interest in the companionship and society of his or her parents.” [26]
FACT: Affiant is aware that “State employees who withhold a child from her family infringe on the family’s liberty of familial association.” [27]
FACT: Affiant is aware that forced separation of parent from child, even for a short time, represents a serious infringement upon the rights of both. [28]
FACT: Affiant is aware that parent’s interest is of “the highest order.” And the court recognizes “the vital importance of curbing overzealous suspicion and intervention on the part of health care professionals and government officials.” [29]
FACTS AND AUTHORITIES
[1] Doe et al, v. Heck et al (No. 01-3648, 2003 US App. Lexis 7144)
[2] Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1999).
[3] Smith (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 1, 16, 601 N.E.2d 45, 54.
[4] Hurlman v. Rice, (2nd Cir. 1991)
[5] Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, (1978)
[12] H.R. v. State Department of Human Resources, 612 So. 2d 477 (Ala. Ct. App. 1992)
[13] South Dakota v. Dole, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
[14] Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987).
[15] Walsh v. Erie County Dept. of Job and Family Services, 3:01-cv-7588.
[16] Calabretta v. Floyd, 9th Cir. (1999)
[17] White v. Pierce County (797 F. 2d 812 (9th Cir. 1986)
[18] North Hudson DYFS v. Koehler Family, filed December 18, 2000.
[19] Florida v. Bostick, 501 US 429 (1991).
[20] Cassady v. Tackett, 938 F. 2d (6th Cir. 1991).
[21] Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 US (1960)
[22] In H.R. v. State Department of Human Resources, 612 So.2d 477 (Ala. Ct. App. 1992)
[23] Amendment VI.
[24] Views of Experts on Effects of Domestic Violence on Children; Nicholson v. Williams, Case No.: 00-cv-2229 Ex. 163 at 866.
[25] Brokaw v. Mercer County, 7th Cir. (2000)
[26] Ward v. San Jose, 9th Cir. (1992)
[27] K.H. through Murphy v. Morgan, 7th Cir. (1990)
[28] J.B. v. Washington county, 10th Cir. (1997)
[29] Thomason v. Scan Volunteer Services, Inc., 8th Cir. (1996)
This Affidavit is sworn, affirmed, subscribed, acknowledged, sealed, duly posted, certified, recorded and is hereby deemed to be your “means of knowledge.” The means of knowledge, especially when knowledge consists of published public records, is deemed in law to be “knowledge of the facts.” Equality under the law is paramount and mandatory by law.
This Affidavit is freely and voluntarily made, is not made under threat, duress or coercion and without deception for purposes of evasion. Notice to principal is notice to agents. Notice to agents is notice to principals. Published recorded notice is notice to all.
Affiant, expressly reserves all unalienable right to amend, alter or repeal in parts or its whole this Affidavit at times and places of My own choosing, accordingly as new facts and revelations are made available to Me at various future times and places as yet unknown, and as yet to be determined.
Pursuant to Title 28 USC §1746(1) and executed “without the United States”, I, [name], affirm under penalty of perjury under the laws of the united states of America that the foregoing is true and correct, to the best of my belief and informed knowledge.
“Indeed, no more than [affidavit] is necessary to make the prima facie case.” United States v. Kis, 658 f.2d 526 (7th Cir. 1981); certiorari denied, 50 U.S.L.W. 2169. S.Ct. March 22, 1982.
And Further this deponent sayeth not.
I, Me, My, Myself, now affix My signature to all of the above WITH EXPLICIT RESERVATION OF ALL OF MY UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY OF THOSE RIGHTS, PURSUANT TO UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (UCC) 1-308 AND 1-103.
Respectfully, [Sign in presence of notary] Date:
END AFFIDAVIT
FACT NOTES and INFORMATION
A due-process violation occurs when a state-required breakup of a natural family is founded solely on a "best interests" analysis that is not supported by the requisite proof of parental unfitness. Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, (1978) End Note.
Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured - They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
18 U.S.C Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) violations
The decision in the case of Doe et al, v. Heck et al (No. 01-3648, 2003 US App. Lexis 7144) will affect the manner in which law enforcement and Child Protective Services ("CPS") investigations of alleged child abuse or neglect are conducted. The decision of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the practice of a "no prior consent" interview of a child will ordinarily constitute a "clear violation" of the constitutional rights of parents under the 4th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. According to the Court, the investigative interview of a child constitutes a "search and seizure" and, when conducted on private property without "consent, a warrant, probable cause, or exigent circumstances," such an interview is an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the rights of the parent, child, and, possibly the owner of the private property.The mere possibility or risk of harm does not constitute an emergency or exigent circumstance that would justify a forced warrantless entry and a warrantless seizure of a child. Hurlman v. Rice, (2nd Cir. 1991)
http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/
CPS Book
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES
AND THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
A guide to protect the constitutional rights of both parents and children as ruled by the Federal Circuit Courts and Supreme Court.
“Know your rights before you talk to anyone from CPS/DCF or let them in your house, they won’t tell you your rights. CPS/DCF can’t do anything without your consent, demand a warrant and speak with an attorney first before speaking with anyone from CPS/DCF, it could cost you your children.”
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said it best, “The government’s interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse, but also protecting children’s interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents.” Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1999).
FACT. Affiant is not in receipt of any document which purports to claim that I First Last-named, am not capable of “protecting (my) children’s interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents.” [1] Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1999).
Permanent termination of parental rights has been described as “the family law equivalent of the death penalty in a criminal case.” Therefore, parents “must be afforded every procedural and substantive protection the law allows.” Smith (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 1, 16, 601 N.E.2d 45, 54.
FACT. Affiant, First Last-named is not in receipt of any process, which “must be afforded every procedural and substantive protection the law allows.” [2] Smith (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 1, 16, 601 N.E.2d 45, 54.
“There is no system ever devised by mankind that is guaranteed to rip husband and wife or father, mother and child apart so bitterly than our present Family Court System.”
Judge Brian Lindsay
Retired Supreme Court Judge
New York, New York
“There is something bad happening to our children in family courts today that is causing them more harm than drugs, more harm than crime and even more harm than child molestation.”
Judge Watson L. White
Superior Court Judge
Cobb County, Georgia
Written by:
Thomas M. Dutkiewicz, President
Connecticut DCF Watch
P.O. Box 3005
Bristol, CT 06011-3005
860-833-4127
Admin@connecticutDCFwatch.com
www.connecticutdcfwatch.com
WE AT CONNECTICUT DCF WATCH ARE NOT ATTORNEYS AND ARE UNABLE TO OFFER ANY LEGAL ADVICE. ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IF YOU CHOOSE TO USE ANY OF THIS INFORMATION, YOU DO SO BY YOUR OWN CHOICE, CONVICTION AND RISK. WE ONLY OFFER UP AN OPINION FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW. WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DECISIONS YOU CHOOSE TO MAKE OR FAIL TO MAKE. BEFORE MAKING ANY DECISIONS, SEEK LEGAL ADVICE FROM AN ATTORNEY IN THE AREA OF LAW YOU WISH TO PURSUE.
IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR CPS TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION IN THE HOME AND INTERVIEW A CHILD WITHOUT EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES (IMMINENT “PHYSICAL” DANGER) OR PROBABLE CAUSE.
The decision in the case of Doe et al, v. Heck et al (No. 01-3648, 2003 US App. Lexis 7144) will affect the manner in which law enforcement and Child Protective Services (“CPS”) investigations of alleged child abuse or neglect are conducted. The decision of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the practice of a “no prior consent” interview of a child will ordinarily constitute a “clear violation” of the constitutional rights of parents under the 4th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. According to the Court, the investigative interview of a child constitutes a “search and seizure” and, when conducted on private property without “consent, a warrant, probable cause, or exigent circumstances,” such an interview is an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the rights of the parent, child, and, possibly the owner of the private property.
FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of any document that I, First Last-named has given “consent”, to an interview of Child Name. [#] Doe et al, v. Heck et al (No. 01-3648, 2003 US App. Lexis 7144)
FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of any document that absent “consent, a warrant, probable cause, or exigent circumstances,” is not an unreasonable search and seizure and in violation My NAME and MY CHILDS NAME. [#] Doe et al, v. Heck et al (No. 01-3648, 2003 US App. Lexis 7144)
The mere possibility or risk of harm does not constitute an emergency or exigent circumstance that would justify a forced warrantless entry and a warrantless seizure of a child. Hurlman v. Rice, (2nd Cir. 1991)
FACT: Affiant is aware that any “mere possibility or risk of harm does not constitute an emergency or exigent circumstance that would justify a forced warrantless entry and a warrantless seizure of a child.” [#] Hurlman v. Rice, (2nd Cir. 1991)
A due-process violation occurs when a state-required breakup of a natural family is founded solely on a “best interests” analysis that is not supported by the requisite proof of parental unfitness. Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, (1978)
FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of an instrument that purports that “a state-required breakup of a natural family is founded solely on a “best interests” analysis that is not supported by the requisite proof of parental unfitness.” Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, (1978)
HEARSAY STATEMENTS INADMISSIBLE FROM CASE WORKERS,
POLICE COUNSELORS AND PHYSICIANS
A.G.G. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
The Court of Appeals of Kentucky vacated and remanded a decision by the Barren Circuit Court which terminated parental rights because of sexual abuse. The court found that a child's statements to a counselor during therapy and a physician during a physical examination were hearsay and inadmissible at trial under the U.S. Supreme Court case, Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004), because the child did not testify at trial and there was no opportunity for cross-examination of the child. Because the child's statements were inadmissible, the child welfare agency failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the child had been sexually abused. Cite: NO. 2004-CA-001979-ME and NO. 2004-CA-002032-ME, 2005 Ky. App. LEXIS 163 (Ky. Ct. App 2005)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: In re TY.B & In re TI.B
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's order terminating a father's parental rights to his children, based on that court's finding of neglect; the appeals court holding that the erroneous termination order was based on inadmissible hearsay testimony. The Court of Appeals concluded that the father adequately preserved his objection to admission of the testimony, and consequently reversed the termination order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Cite: No. 01-FS-1307; No. 01-FS-1320; 2005 D.C. App. LEXIS 390 (D.C. July 21, 2005)
FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of an instrument that purports that I, First Last-name, have not reserved my rights to have “inadmissible hearsay testimony” stricken from the court record. [#]Cite: No. 01-FS-1307; No. 01-FS-1320; 2005 D.C. App. LEXIS 390 (D.C. July 21, 2005), UCC 1-308.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface 1
About The Authors 1
Introduction 1
SECTION 1 - Never Ever Trust Anyone from CPS/DCF 2
SECTION 2 - Are All CPS Workers in the United States Subject to the 4th And 14th Amendment? 3
SECTION 3 - The Fourth Amendment’s Impact on Child Abuse Investigations 8
SECTION 4 - When Is Consent Not Consent? 8
SECTION 6 - Do Children Have Legal Standing to Sue CPS for Their Illegal Abduction from Their Home and Violating Their 4th and 14th Amendment Rights? 11
SECTION 7 - Summary of Family Rights (Family Association) 12
SECTION 8 - Warrantless Entry 12
SECTION 9 - Due Process 13
SECTION 10 - Seizures (Child Removals) 14
SECTION 11 - Immunity 15
SECTION 12 - Decisions of the United States Supreme Court Upholding Parental Rights as “Fundamental” 16
PREFACE
This is only a guide to your constitutional protections in the context of an investigation of alleged child abuse and neglect by Child Protective Services (“CPS”). Every state has variances of CPS in one form or another. Some are called DCF, DHS, DSS, DCYS, DCFS, HRS, CYS and FIA, collectively known as “CPS” for the purposes of this handbook. The material in this handbook should be supplemented by your own careful study of the 4th and 14th Amendments and other Constitutional protections that are guaranteed even in the context of dealing with CPS.
The intent of this handbook is to inform parents, caregivers and their attorneys that they can stand up against CPS and Juvenile Judges when they infringe upon the rights of both parents and children. As you read this handbook, you will be amazed what your rights are and how CPS conspires with the Assistant Attorney General (“AAG”) who then in turn has the Judge issue warrant/orders that are unlawful and unconstitutional under the law. Contrary to what any CPS officials, the AAG, Juvenile Judge or any social workers may say, they are all subject to and must yield to the 4th and 14th Amendment just like police officers according to the Circuit and District Courts of the United States and the Supreme Court. CPS workers can be sued for violations of your 4th and 14th Amendments, they lose their “immunity” by those “Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law” and must be sued in their “Official and Individual” capacity in order to succeed in a §§ 1983 and 1985 civil right’s lawsuit. If the police assisted CPS in that deprivation of rights, they also lose immunity and can be sued for assisting CPS in the violation of both yours and your child’s rights when they illegally abduct your children or enter your home without probable cause or exigent circumstances, which are required under the warrant clause of the 14th Amendment.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
The authors of this handbook are not attorneys and do not pretend to be attorneys. The authors were victims of a false report and were falsely accused by DCF in Connecticut without a proper investigation being conducted. The authors fought back for 8 months against this corrupt organization whose order of the day was to deny them their 4th, 6th and 14th Amendment rights and to fabricate false charges without evidence.
The author’s goals are to not have another child illegally abducted from their family; that CPS and juvenile judges start using common sense before rushing to judgment and to conduct their investigations the same as police in order to be constitutionally correct and legal; and that CPS MUST by law comply with the “Warrant Clause” as required by the Constitution and the Federal Courts whereas they are “governmental officials” and are subject to the Constitution as are the police. There are NO EXCEPTIONS to the Constitution for CPS.
INTRODUCTION
You as a parent or caregiver MUST know your rights and be totally informed of what you have a legal right to have and to express, whether you are a parent caught up in the very oppressive, abusive and many times unlawful actions of CPS or if you have never been investigated by CPS. Many individuals come to the wrong conclusion that the parents must have been abusive or neglectful for CPS to investigate, this is just a myth. The fact of the matter is that over 80% of the calls phoned into CPS are false and bogus.
Another myth is that CPS can conduct an investigation in your home without your consent and speak to your child without your consent. CPS employees will lie to you and tell you they do not need your consent. The fact of the matter is they absolutely need your consent to come into your home and speak with your children. If there is no “exigent circumstances” (imminent danger) to your children with “probable cause” (credible witness) to support a warrant, CPS anywhere in the United States cannot lawfully enter your home and speak with you and your children. In fact, it is illegal. You can sue the social worker and the police who assist them and both lose immunity from being sued.
If CPS lies to the AAG and the Judge to get a warrant/order and you can prove it, that also is a 4th and 14th Amendment rights violation which is a civil rights violation under § 1983 and conspiracy against rights covered under § 1985. If a CPS official knocks on your door, has no legal warrant, you refuse them entry, and the worker then threatens you with calling the police, this is also illegal and unlawful and both lose immunity. This is coercion, threatening and intimidation tactics even if the police only got the door open so CPS official can gain entry. Both can be sued.
Remember, CPS officials will not tell you your rights. In fact, they are going to do everything in their power including lying to you and threatening you with police presence telling you that you have to let them in. The police may even threaten you to let CPS in because you are obstructing an investigation. Many police officers do not realize that CPS MUST comply with the warrant clause of the 14th Amendment or be sued for violating it.
CPS does not have a legal right to conduct an investigation of alleged child abuse or neglect in a private home without your consent. In fact removing a child from your home without your consent even for several hours is a “seizure” under federal law. Speaking to your children without your consent is also a “seizure” under the law. If CPS cannot support a warrant and show that the child is in immanent danger along with probable cause, CPS cannot enter your home and speak with your children. Remember, anonymous calls into CPS are NEVER probable cause under the Warrant Clause. And even if they got a name and number from the reporter on the end of the phone, that also does not support probable cause under the law. CPS must by law, investigate the caller to determine if he or she is the person who they say they are and that what they said is credible. The call alone, standing by itself, is insufficient to support probable cause under the law. Many bogus calls are made by disgruntle neighbors, ex-spouses, or someone wanting to get revenge. So CPS needs to show the same due diligence as the police to obtain sworn statements. All CPS agencies across the country have an exaggerated view of their power. What you think is or is not abuse or neglect, CPS has a totally different definition. The definition is whatever they want it to be. DCF will lie to you, mark my word, and tell you that they can do anything they want and have total immunity. Tell that to the half dozen social workers currently sitting in jail in California, they lied to the judge. We will discuss in further detail what CPS and the police can and can not do.
SECTION 1
THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THERE IS A PRESUMPTION
THAT A FIT PARENT ACTS IN THEIR CHILDREN’S BEST INTERESTS
NOT CHILD PROTECTION (CPS) OR YOUR STATE
The United States Supreme Court has stated: "There is a presumption that fit parents act in their children's best interests, Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 602; there is normally no reason or compelling interest for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question fit parents' ability to make the best decisions regarding their children. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 304. The state may not interfere in child rearing decisions when a fit parent is available. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).
FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of any probable cause that would purport that I, First Last-name, am incapable as a “fit parent” or that I am not capable of acting in my “children's best interests.” [#] Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 602
FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of any “compelling interest for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question fit parents' ability to make the best decisions regarding their children.” Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 304.
FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of any instrument granting the state authority to “interfere in child rearing decisions when a fit parent is available.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).
Consequently, the State of Connecticut or any state can not use the “best interest of the child” standard to substitute its judgment for a fit parent and parroting that term is “legally insufficient” to use in the court to force parents to follow some arbitrary standard, case plan or horse and pony show. The State cannot usurp a fit parent’s decision making related to parental spending for their children, i.e. child support without either a demonstration the parent is unfit or there is proven harm to the child. In other words, the state and Child Protective Services can not impose a standard of living dealing with the rearing of children. When they violate this fundamental right, they would be intruding on the family’s life and liberty interest. The 1st Amendment bars such action because the rearing of children and the best interest of children is often based on ones religious beliefs, i.e. the separation of church and state. By the state imposing any standard of living or the rearing of children, they are putting forth a religious standard by their actions i.e. how you act, what to feed the child, how to dress the child, whether or not to home school and so on. The courts and the state lack jurisdiction on what goes on in the house even though they disagree with the choices made by parents, the Plaintiffs term this “parental immunity.” It’s none of the state’s business on how you are to raise your children. In other words, they can not falsely accuse parents of abuse or neglect just because they disagree with the method of child rearing or the standard in which they live.
State Law provisions mandate that the State invade the family, through the judiciary, to examine, evaluate, determine and conclude the terms and nature of the interpersonal relationship, spousal roles, spousal conduct, parental decision making, parenting conduct, parental spending, economic standard of living, occupations, education, savings, assets, charitable contributions and most importantly the intimate emotional, psychological and physical details of the parties and family during their marriage granting the judiciary a broad range of discretion to apply a property stripping statute with a standard of equity. This would be an abuse of the judicial power and the judicial system to intrude into U.S. citizen’s lives and violate their privacy rights. It is not the state’s right or jurisdiction to examine the day to day decisions and choices of citizens and then sit there in judgment and then force parents to follow conflicting standards with threat of harm for noncompliance i.e. abduction of children.
The United States Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment contains a recognized Right to Privacy. This fundamental Right to Privacy encompasses the Privacy Protected Zone of Parenting. The Plaintiff asserts that DCF policy and Connecticut General Statutes impermissibly infringe the Federal Right to Privacy to the extent they mandate the parent to support his or her children beyond a standard to prevent harm to them. They substitute the State s judgment for the parent’s judgment as to the best interest of his or her children. The challenged statutes do not mandate a review to determine if demonstrable harm exists to the children in determining the amount of support that the parent must provide.
The State is not permitted and lacks jurisdiction to determine care and maintenance, i.e. spending, i.e. child discipline, decisions of a fit parent based on his or her income in an intact marriage other than to prevent harm to a child. There is no basis for the State to have a statute that mandates a fit divorced parent should support their child to a different standard, i.e. the standard of the best interests of a child. Furthermore, the State must not so mandate absent a demonstration that the choice of support provided by the parent has resulted in harm to his or her children.
The U.S. Supreme Court has mandated that the standard for the State to intrude in parenting decisions relating to grandparent visitation is no longer best interests of the child. Troxel v. Granville, 530
FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of any “standard for the State to intrude in parenting decisions relating to grandparent visitation.” Troxel v. Granville, 530
U.S. 57; 120 S.Ct. 2054 (2000). This court should recognize the changed standard of State intrusion in parenting should also apply to the context of parents care, control, and maintenance, i.e. spending, i.e. child discipline decisions, on behalf of his or her children.
Fact: Affiant is not in receipt of standards or “context of parents care, control, and maintenance, i.e. spending, i.e. child discipline decisions, on behalf of his or her children.” U.S. 57; 120 S.Ct. 2054 (2000).
In conclusion, unless CPS and the Attorney General's Office can provide the requisite proof of parental unfitness, you’re State, CPS, the Attorney General's Office and the Juvenile Courts can't make on behalf of the parents or for the child unless the parent is adjudicated unfit. And as long as there is one fit parent, CPS and the Attorney General's Office can not interfere or remove a single child.
SECTION
Child Protection Threats to Take Children Ruled Illegal
By Ofelia Casillas and Matt O'Connor
Chicago Tribune Staff Reporters
A federal judge ruled that Illinois families were deprived of their constitutional rights when state child welfare officials threatened to separate parents from their children during abuse investigations.
In a decision made public Monday, U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer found "ample evidence" that families suffered emotional and psychological injuries because the separations lasted "for more than a brief or temporary period."
The judge didn't fault the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services for erring on the side of caution in such cases, but she held that parents had a right to know the length of the expected separations and how to contest the restrictions.
In telephone interviews with the Tribune, families described being shocked, paranoid and frightened by the allegations that some thought would result in them losing their children. Parents felt that caseworkers assumed them to be guilty.
A father from Skokie spent almost a year away from his family, and the effects of the rift that developed between them remain years later.
"I don't think it can ever be repaired. We are all broken up; we are not bonded the way that we used to be," said the father, who requested that he only be identified by his first name, Patrick. "I cannot get over what they did to me. It devastated my whole entire life. I can never be the same again."
The ruling shows the dilemma facing the oft-criticized DCFS in its charge to protect children from harm but also keep families together when possible.
'A Mother' against CPS sent so many e-mails regarding her children that the CPS caseworker said; "I don't want to talk to you anymore", “All your contact with me must come through your attorney”... which is the only way you should have to do it in the first place... But, this does not allow her to finish her case plan.
So, the CPS Agent, did to her what they did to me, and said, "Your annoying, go away, I don't want to answer to you"...
Now that this mother could not finish her case plan, 'cooperate', like I couldn't, and we were both set up for failure, while they made no 'REASONABLE EFFORTS', and WE THE PEOPLE get the equivalent of the death penalty for a caseworker honoring our rights inalienable, our due process rights... it is backwards, really, really backwards.
That is what they did to me too for a caseworker honoring our due process rights... It happened to me when they said, 'No Reasonable Cause' to believe child abuse or neglect has occurred... but I still got more 'time' than a child molester gets for statutory rape.
So, how is honoring your due process rights punishment? U got to know what they are before u can see how backwards CPS is indoctrinated.
So when are you going to go arrest Chandra Snyder? She committed perjury at the Citizen Review Board?
Regarding: Conditions of my home ( of Conditions & Circumstances)
So when are you going to hold the person accountable that gave a set of 'teeth' to Judge Sullivan Judge Horner bit me with on July 13, 2005. On that note I will ask, "Who gets a restraining order because of a messy house?" (*) Have you ever given out a restraining order to any body when they came into your court room and said, "The house is so messy I'm going to wind up in the emergency room any minute!", they getting the messy house keeper restrained, but then not require Charges pressed upon the mess maker for reckless endangerment on the grounds of a 'feloniously messy house'. "Well, how do we sort out who is the Person in Charge, who is the person 'responsible for the house cleaning?". "Who is the person damaged?". Well, I never had any charges pressed on that matter and never had a case brought against me and this is the only bit of discovery I ever got but it was not properly presented to me because Judge Sullivan is not the Public Defender and that is the proper way to get me the allegation's presented to Judge Sullivan. And on that note I remember reading parents don't get an attorney assigned them when Child Protectors question them which leaves me to defend myself and I did not ever see any of the evidence against me or have any questions regarding that matter presented to me for a rebuttal. Moreover, I was not Marandized, or ever given the opportunity to wave Miranda Rights, or offer a refute on the relevancy issues pertaining to that allegation before it was set before Judge Sullivan for consideration o
Termination of Parental Rights is Equivalentto the Death Penalty. When one person can walk through your front door, take your children, keep them, bill you too, pass the laws that empower them, and then not give you a grand jury indictment, when a tip from a anonymous person was never faced in open court, while attorneys do not demand trial by jury, and then pass all the statutes, regulations, and policies, which are repugnant and deliberately designed to circumvent, ignore the supreme law, the ones judges swear to uphold and defend, we are caused to loose all our inalienable rights, which defined our citizenship. If we have no citizen ship we have no alliance with our national origin and are in fact alienated to that which is our natural inherent birthright. These violations of our American Due Process Rights are compounded by judges, psychologists, and attorneys violating the Separation of Powers defined in the Federalist Papers Article 86 by being a member of one branch of government that controls the other while gaining the position of god from the opinion of one man.
Termination of Parental Rights -The most basic issues are:
"We cannot have Constitutional government if we do not have Constitutional Courts. " Roger Weidner
"Bureaucrat Protection is not Child Protection" Marilyn LeBaron
Termination of Parental Rights is Equivalentto the Death Penalty. When one person can walk through your front door, take your children, keep them, bill you too, pass the laws that empower them, and then not give you a grand jury indictment, when a tip from a anonymous person was never faced in open court, while attorneys do not demand trial by jury, and then pass all the statutes, regulations, and policies, which are repugnant and deliberately designed to circumvent, ignore the supreme law, the ones judges swear to uphold and defend, we are caused to loose all our inalienable rights, which defined our citizenship. If we have no citizen ship we have no alliance with our national origin and are in fact alienated to that which is our natural inherent birthright. These violations of our American Due Process Rights are compounded by judges, psychologists, and attorneys violating the Separation of Powers defined in the Federalist Papers Article 86 by being a member of one branch of government that controls the other while gaining the position of god from the opinion of one man.
Law Review for repugnance and duplicity. Rule 53 for now.
I have things registered in sealed envelopes to keep a timeline on things, too. Just in case they do not document, which they do not. But what they did document only proves they violated me all over the place... their own words in EXHIBIT against me is their own confession....
CPS problems here and warrant invented after the arrest.
Marion County has solved the issue but I don't get to pull the 'same trick' Zack got by using an Ex Parte Motion for a Status Quo ... but I get to see my son any time I want now (which rules out any possible allegation that I am in any way an eminent threat against my children)! -When have I ever been? Please demand to see the physical proof, the evidence against me... I beg... please find an exhibit of an eminent threat against my children logged in the Dallas DHS Office at 177 SW Oak, Dallas, Oregon, 97338, on the dates of January 10, 2005, to January 20, 2005, and then go see where it is logged on January 25, 2005, and demand the reason given to Chandra Snyder which was 'logged' in a timely manner (the supervisory extensions I requested in my attempt for Discovery). Please compare that documentation, 'if any', to what was said in the supervisory meeting held on February 14th, 2005 in support of the fax sent to Zachariah B. Singleton on February 08, 2005. This fax was never mailed to me by CERTIFIED MAIL RECIEPT REQUESTED as OAR Require for a FOUNDED disposition which is a violation of my right to a refute at the earliest stage of an investigation (Sound Police Investigation) ... I got this fax off the front door of Zachariah Singleton's home in Redmond when I went to pick my son up intending to go have a Birthday Party we never go to have... The Birthday parties 'in' my home have never been the same… which is worse than the broken arm I was promised… I left a balloon I brought with me at the Redmond address and looked back at the porch and drove away… This was the last times I got to contact my son before I knew I would be headed for the night mare of my life... because that fax was a lie and I knew deep down 'liars keep telling lies' and my soul screamed, "You will probably never see Bleu again"... I wondered how far they would go to put me in my proper place while I demanded justice...
See: Parent Alienation Syndrome and Special Position in Society
Why does the State of Oregon get the Special Place in our Power Structure to Alienate Parents from their children for non criminal allegation never brought to trial? Why do Judges hear in closed quarters allegation never presented to the parent accused of less that a misdemeanor never having those allegations brought to 'non justice'?… Does my demand for Due Process qualify as Civil Disobedience or Contempt of Court? Certainly not Obstruction of Justice? How do I get non tried for ADMINISTATIVE INTERFEREENCE and having those 'charges' dropped but the State at Judge Luukinen's motion CONSOLIDATE the matters twice one not having bearing on the other when it is dismissed.
Please tell me what message Polk County Judiciary are sending the American people and what would a jury say... if I had one the matter not intended for their deliberation… Friday, June 20, 2008
This is what a refute looks like: See: Affidavit of Special Visitation.
Master Example can be found in the CPS (free) HANDBOOK
I did not know any thing about how to file a refute when my case was going on and this refute has to be filed at the first Appearance in court (like the day after they take your kids and get a 'Dependency Hearing')..., where you get no arraignment, yet facing the equivalent of a Death Penalty on a non criminal allegation... (non crime) is where you non'face a non accuser's (n'allegation) ... it is not subject to a Grand Jury Indictment, 'it is Family Law', but you can get the equivalent of getting the electic chair and never have to take a seat or have a sponge shoved in your mouth. That is what was going on in what we once called America but I call our problems Amer-ee-ka (the Defacto).
All the times I went to court and did not know a thing... but I just knew 'my head' was 'chopped off somehow'...
See: O5P2064 and O5P2176, Judge Horner, Singleton v. LeBaron and 'vise versa'...
The Consolidation Move that threw out Due Process by Judge Luukinen? (if he would give me the same consideration he would ask for his own defense...if he was facing the hangmans knoose, next to Judge William M. Horner, Marion L. Fleming, Fred E. Avera, and other's like them... in Florida and California... Like all those on Julie A Witherspoons case... Oh, and Judge Sullivan, too.) Oh, well what about all the rest of them who dole out the equivalent of Death Sentences ignoring the possible slogan... "No Grand Jury Indictment, No Jury Trial Needed"... Please See "No Due Process, No Charges Possible"... Well, lets see if they ageee they need a Grand Jury Indictment if we threaten them with Impeachment Nationwide!
...while another… Judge Avera (*Avery) ignored my motion for Full Disclosure,
This is a RULE 53 REFORM matter
Luukinen saying, ..."Get an Attorney or get a broken arm", at the 'CONSOLIDATION' hearing, for O5P2064/O5P2176, which was never CONSOLIDATED ... he understating the full consequences while he should have said, "Don't you dare say, 'Constitution' -Judge Horner will 'lop your head off' instantly for that!" "You are always seen as WARD OF THE COURT here in Polk County!" That is what he should have said instead of ... the equivalent... "Your going to need a cast on 'your' arm"... looking from me to my opponent ... indicating he only sees the 'parents as the people needing 'medical attention' for what was to come next... he failing to see the out come, the future, the lies, the violations of Supreme Court Rule... thee 'A home can not me made in a day' decision... That Supreme Court decision, was, on Good Faith, violated by Judge Sullivan of Deschutes County, (somebody whispered allegations in his ear never presented to me for a rebuttal...) and Judge Sullivan, who on the word of UNABLE TO DETERMINE, said I could not see my son (at all) ... This was handed down in a Status Quo to a man my son barley knew (who abandon him, was a dead beat dad for over eight years, hiding never telling me his address even when he did make contact through his relatives to peek at his son, and never did a single thing about all the 'stuff' he had to say about my abilities as a mother, he telling the Child Support Division, "My son was living in the back of a truck" while trying to deny his fatherhood...)
This UNABLE TO DETERMINE gone (EMERGENCY!!!!) was upheld by Judge Horner, too, because Judges do that 'back each other up', but, Judge Sullivan handed down the unofficial ...'No Contact Order'... in a Status Quo which usually is implemented while intending to keep the child's schedule 'the same' hence Status Quo, as before, abusing the legislated intent for that document&183; My son did not keep his schedule his 'Life' got ripped apart! His parent child bond torn up on Good Faith .... e-hem... 5 days before the 'Staff over in Polk County' ... the ones whispering in judicial ears... formally held a meeting, a very illegal meeting, to say, later in letters to me... "We would have found this case FOUNDED, when there was no Police Investigation or any demands for evidence or doctor visits on the allegation in the Fax ... No family unity meeting... No mediation... No REGISTERED LETTERS to say FOUNDED. Just, "We have no Teeth" in the formal interview ( held at the Juvenile Department at the request of ... ? on January 20, 2005) ... I notified of this meeting on January 13, 2005 by Matt L. Hawkins who was handed the telephone by Officer Banuelos... that same day the CPS Agent' said, No Police Needed'… and then some the CPS showed up at that meeting... January 20, 2005, where the only concern directly 'voiced' was, "I'm concerned... you can't follow a conversation" ... being the only direct allegation voiced... in response to my request for verbal discovery in order for me to have my rights upheld... and when I proved she was wrong they diagnosed me and took my daughter away from me... (the next case brought against me), ...all the but covering for Horner ... Sullivan... and the DHS... Please: See: MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC TESTIMONY... Please put a stop to 'prosecution for non crime' on the future attack of public officials...
TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT OTHER JUDGES DO IN FLORIDA TO GET AN IDEA OF WHAT GOES ON ALL OVER THE 'Home of the brave 'land of the free (FREE)'...
Greg Pound got the equivalent of 4 Death Penalty Sentences form that same judge Marion L Fleming See: YouTube - Greg Pound www. freeourkids. com
Headline: Marion L. Fleming's Death Threats 4 states
http://www. sptimes. com/letters/ -----Original Message----- From: MADatCPS@aol.com To: xxxxxxxx Cc: xxxxxx; xxxxxxxx; xxxxxxxx Sent: Mon, 26 May 2008 9:52 pm
Subject: Dear CPS Victim, xxxxxxxxxx, Mr. A, Mr. C, & Person C, Dear Melissa, Mr. A, Mr. C, & Person C,
Help is on the way.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sovereign American To: MADatCPS@aol.com Sent: Mon, 26 May 2008 11:01 am Subject: Re: Fwd: Kids pics in database. Brianna has since been removed
The same CPS nonsense you are going through happened in Texas. The process paid off for the compound mothers because they had good assistance and could file properly.
Lawyers are important, but I have not found even one. The UCC in now before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Vermont. The most important issue is process of the court. The language in UCC 3-501 (b) (2) and (3) have never been answered by any court.
District Courts have an easy out at 28 USC 636 (c), but the court goes ahead anyway and forces an appeal. Also, they do not "Seal and teste Process" per 28 USC 1691. The judge cannot give "dispositive"/jural orders because he is an Article I judge and not jural at Article III.
Each state has their own rules concerning process and you should study your state. Very important because (3) (i) return the instrument for lack of a necessary indorsement, is part of process. A type written name at the bottom of an injunction invalidates the instrument. This is also 28 USC 1691.
Lawyers do not study this material or use it in court. Good hunting. Psalm 25:9.
--- MADatCPS@aol.com wrote:
Thanks for all your help William. CPS Victim, xxxxxxxxxx is making it work!
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice UCC 1-308 Marilyn LeBaron
-----Original Message----- From: CPS Victim, xxxxxxxxxx To: blawg_war@yahoo.com Sent: Sun, 25 May 2008 9:30 pm
Subject: Fwd: Kids pics in database. Brianna has since been removed
-----Original Message-----
This false listing (by itself) is one civil right (42 USC Section 1983) Count for Malicious Prosecution---also a violation of 42 USC Sec.
-----Original Message----- From: Sovereign American To: MADatCPS@aol.com Sent: Mon, 26 May 2008 10:16 am Subject: Re: Fwd: Affidavit of Special Visitation Dear CPS Victim, xxxxxxxxxx, Go for it. This lawyer will ask the hard questions and is badly needed because they know the form and system. I will help her anyway I can. "Don't sleep on it. "
Sovereign American
--- MADatCPS@aol.com wrote Fwd: Affidavit of Special Visitation
-----Original Message----- From: xxxxxxxx To: CPS Victim, xxxxxxxxxx Sent: Sun, 25 May 2008 4:53 pm Subject: Fw: Affidavit of Special Visitation Dear CPS Victim, xxxxxxxxxx:
If you can get me $2,500 immediately and a total of $12,500 eventually (doesn't really matter when, but the total sometime by the end of this year or early next year), I think I can convert this affidavit into a $2. 5 million lawsuit with excellent chances of winning and having it upheld. I AM a disbarred attorney, but I can still do all or most of the footwork for you UNTIL Court appearances are necessary, but I also think I can get this organized as a case that some high profile national lawyers (e.g. from Harvard, where I'm planning on spending the summer) may be willing to step in. ? Your case is truly outrageous. ? I'll also work with your public defender in Pinellas and can travel anywhere in the U.S. that it might be necessary to help you prepare the evidence.
Call me if you're interested....but you don't want to sleep on this. ? If you don't want me to do it because of my status and background, please shop it around to other lawyers.....Your situation and status are amazing. ? I know a State Senator from Montana whose got a very similar story.... and he's become one of the top legal reform advocates in the U.S.
CEL
-----Original Message----- From: CPS Victim, xxxxxxxxxx To: xxxxxx Date:Sun, 9 Mar 2008 23:35:42 -0700 (PDT) From:"xxxxxxxxx" Subject: Affidavit of Special Visitation
AFFIDAVIT of SPECIAL VISITATION
? ?
KNOW ALL MEN AND WOMEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that Affiant, Name of affiant, a natural living, breathing, man on the land being of sound mind and FIRST BEING DULY SWORN, willfully and voluntarily deposes and says, and as ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICE:
?
a) I, CPS Victim, xxxxxxxxxx, am competent to handle matters and for stating the matters set forth herein and all matters must be expressed to be resolved.
?
b) I, CPS Victim, xxxxxxxxxx, have personal kno wledge concerning the facts stated herein.
?
c) All the facts stated herein are true, correct, complete, and certain, not misleading, made in good faith, admissible as evidence, and if stating as I, CPS Victim, xxxxxxxxxx, shall so state.
?
FACT EXAMPLES HERE
?
FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of any law, which would deprive affiant or family of any Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States of America, which would force compliance or demand that we incriminate ourselves.
?
FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of evidence, which demonstrates that there are exigent circumstances relative to the health of the children.
?
FACT: Affiant is not a defendant in any action pending review, nor is Affiant standing as the accused in a criminal action.
?
FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of any document which purports to prove that CPS Victim, xxxxxxxxxx, is willfully meriting contempt or dishonorably disobeying a lawful court order.
?
FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of any lawful court order with Seal and teste of process affixed thereto.
?
FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of any document that absent consent, a warrant, probable cause, or exigent circumstances, is not an unreasonable search and seizure and in violation My NAME and MY CHILDS NAME. [1]
? ?
FACT. Affiant is not in receipt of any document which purports to claim that I CPS Victim, xxxxxxxxxx, am not
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice UCC 1-308 Marilyn LeBaron
To: Innocence Project Sent: Mon, 26 May 2008 11:18 pm Subject: Fwd: Marion L. Fleming's Death Threats 4 states 3:46 PM - 1 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment - Edit - Remove
Tuesday, April 22, 2008 The fourth Sunday in July is Parents’ Day.
Category: Life
§ 135. Parents' Day
(a) Designation.— The fourth Sunday in July is Parents' Day.
(b) Recognition.— All private citizens, organizations, and Federal, State, and local governmental and legislative entities are encouraged to recognize Parents' Day through proclamations, activities, and educational efforts in furtherance of recognizing, uplifting, and supporting the role of parents in bringing up their children.
Marion County has solved the issue but I don't get to pull the 'same trick' Zack got by using an Ex Parte Motion for a Status Quo ... but I get to see my son any time I want now (which rules out any possible allegation that I am in any way an eminent threat against my children)! -When have I ever been? Please demand to see the physical proof, the evidence against me... I beg... please find an exhibit of an eminent threat against my children logged in the Dallas DHS Office at 177 SW Oak, Dallas, Oregon, 97338, on the dates of January 10, 2005, to January 20, 2005, and then go see where it is logged on January 25, 2005, and demand the reason given to Chandra Snyder which was 'logged' in a timely manner (the supervisory extensions I requested in my attempt for Discovery). Please compare that documentation, 'if any', to what was said in the supervisory meeting held on February 14th, 2005 in support of the fax sent to Zachariah B. Singleton on February 08, 2005. This fax was never mailed to me by CERTIFIED MAIL RECIEPT REQUESTED as OAR Require for a FOUNDED disposition which is a violation of my right to a refute at the earliest stage of an investigation (Sound Police Investigation) ... I got this fax off the front door of Zachariah Singleton's home in Redmond when I went to pick my son up intending to go have a Birthday Party we never go to have... The Birthday parties ‘in’ my home have never been the same… which is worse than the broken arm I was promised… I left a balloon I brought with me at the Redmond address and looked back at the porch and drove away… This was the last times I got to contact my son before I knew I would be headed for the night mare of my life... because that fax was a lie and I knew deep down 'liars keep telling lies' and my soul screamed, “You will probably never see Bleu again”... I wondered how far they would go to put me in my proper place while I demanded justice...
See: Parent Alienation Syndrome and Special Position in Society
Why does the State of Oregon get the Special Place in our Power Structure to Alienate Parents from their children for non criminal allegation never brought to trial? Why do Judges hear in closed quarters allegation never presented to the parent accused of less that a misdemeanor never having those allegations brought to ‘non justice’?… Does my demand for Due Process qualify as Civil Disobedience or Contempt of Court? Certainly not Obstruction of Justice? How do I get non tried for ADMINISTATIVE INTERFEREENCE and having those ‘charges’ dropped but the State at Judge Luukinen’s motion CONSOLIDATE the matters twice one not having bearing on the other when it is dismissed.
Please tell me what message Polk County Judiciary are sending the American people and what would a jury say if I had on the matter not intended for their consideration…
Friday, June 20, 2008 This is what a refute looks like: See: Affidavit of Special Visitation.
Category: Podcast This is what a refute looks like: See: Affidavit of Special Visitation.
Master Example can be found in the CPS (free) HANDBOOK I did not know any thing about how to file a refute when my case was going on and this refute has to be filed at the first Appearance in court (like the day after they take your kids and get a 'Dependency Hearing', where you get no arraignment while facing the equivalent of a Death Penalty on a non criminal allegation... that is what was going on all the times I went to court and did not know a thing... but know my head was 'chopped off somehow'... See: O5P2064 and O5P2176, Judge Horner, Singleton v. LeBaron and 'vise versa'... The Consolidation Move that threw out Due Process by Judge Luukinen ...while another… Judge Avera (*Avery) ignored my motion for Full Disclosure, This is a RULE 53 REFORM matter Luukinen saying, ..."Get an Attorney or get a broken arm", at the 'CONSOLIDATION' hearing, for O5P2064/O5P2176, which was never CONSOLIDATED ... he understating the full consequences while he should have said, "Don't you dare say Constitution Judge Horner will 'lop your head off' instantly for that", you are always seen as WARD OF THE COURT here in Polk County!" That is what he should have said instead of ... "Your going to need a cast on 'your' arm"... looking from my to my opponent ... indicating he only sees the 'parents at the people needing 'medical attention' for what was to come next... he failing to see the out come, the future, the lies, the violations of Supreme Court Rule... the 'A home can not me made in a day' decision... That Supreme Court decision, was, on Good Faith, violated by Judge Sullivan of Deschutes County, (somebody whispered allegations in his ear never presented to me for a rebuttal... and Judge Sullivan, who on the word of UNABLE TO DETERMINE, said I could not see my son (at all) ... This was handed down in a Status Quo to a man my son barley knew (who abandon him and was a dead beat dad for over eight years hiding never telling me his address even when he did make contact through his relatives to peek at his son...) This UNABLE TO DETERMINE gone (EMERGENCY) was upheld by Judge Horner, too, because Judges do that 'back each other up', but, Judge Sullivan handed down the unofficial ...'No Contact Order'... in a Status Quo which usually is implemented while intending to keep the child's schedule 'the same' hence Status Quo, as before, abusing the legislated intent for that document&183; My son did not keep his schedule his 'Life' got ripped apart! His parent child bond torn up on Good Faith .... e-hem... 5 days before the 'Staff over in Polk County' ... the ones whispering in judicial ears... formally held a meeting, a very illegal meeting, to say, later in letters to me... "We would have found this case FOUNDED, when there was no Police Investigation or any demands for evidence or doctor visits on the allegation in the Fax ... No family unity meeting... No mediation... No REGISTERED LETTERS to say FOUNDED. Just, "We have no Teeth" in the formal interview ( held at the Juvenile Department at the request of ... ? on January 20, 2005) ... I notified of this meeting on January 13, 2005 by Matt L. Hawkins who was handed the telephone by Officer Banuelos... that same day the CPS Agent' said, No Police Needed'… and then some the CPS showed up at that meeting... January 20, 2005, where the only concern directly 'voiced' was, "I'm concerned... you can't follow a conversation" ... being the only direct allegation voiced... in response to my request for verbal discovery in order for me to have my rights upheld... and when I proved she was wrong they diagnosed me and took my daughter away from me... (the next case brought against me), ...all the but covering for Horner ... Sullivan... and the DHS... Please: See: MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC TESTIMONY... Please put a stop to 'prosecution for non crime' on the future attack of public officials... TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT OTHER JUDGES DO IN FLORIDA TO GET AN IDEA OF WHAT GOES ON ALL OVER THE 'Home of the brave 'land of the free (FREE)'... ............................sos....................sos...............sos..................sos................. Greg Pound got the equivalent of 4 Death Penalty Sentences form that same judge Marion L Fleming See: YouTube - Greg Pound Headline: Marion L. Fleming's Death Threats 4 states http://www. sptimes. com/letters/
-----Original Message----- From: MADatCPS@aol.com To: xxxxxxxx Cc: xxxxxx; xxxxxxxx; xxxxxxxx Sent: Mon, 26 May 2008 9:52 pm Subject: Dear CPS Victim, xxxxxxxxxx, Mr. A, Mr. C, & Person C, Dear Melissa, Mr. A, Mr. C, & Person C, Help is on the way.
-----Original Message----- From: Sovereign American To: MADatCPS@aol.com Sent: Mon, 26 May 2008 11:01 am Subject: Re: Fwd: Kids pics in database. Brianna has since been removed
The same CPS nonsense you are going through happened in Texas. The process paid off for the compound mothers because they had good assistance and could file properly.
Lawyers are important, but I have not found even one. The UCC in now before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Vermont. The most important issue is process of the court. The language in UCC 3-501 (b) (2) and (3) have never been answered by any court.
District Courts have an easy out at 28 USC 636 (c), but the court goes ahead anyway and forces an appeal. Also, they do not "Seal and teste Process" per 28 USC 1691. The judge cannot give "dispositive"/jural orders because he is an Article I judge and not jural at Article III.
Each state has their own rules concerning process and you should study your state. Very important because (3) (i) return the instrument for lack of a necessary indorsement, is part of process. A type written name at the bottom of an injunction invalidates the instrument. This is also 28 USC 1691.
Lawyers do not study this material or use it in court. Good hunting. Psalm 25:9.
--- MADatCPS@aol.com wrote: Thanks for all your help William. CPS Victim, xxxxxxxxxx is making it work! All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice UCC 1-308 Marilyn LeBaron
-----Original Message----- From: CPS Victim, xxxxxxxxxx To: blawg_war@yahoo.com Sent: Sun, 25 May 2008 9:30 pm Subject: Fwd: Kids pics in database. Brianna has since been removed -----Original Message----- This false listing (by itself) is one civil right (42 USC Section 1983) Count for Malicious Prosecution---also a violation of 42 USC Sec.
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice UCC 1-308 Marilyn LeBaron -----Original Message----- From: Sovereign American To: MADatCPS@aol.com Sent: Mon, 26 May 2008 10:16 am Subject: Re: Fwd: Affidavit of Special Visitation
Dear CPS Victim, xxxxxxxxxx,
Go for it. This lawyer will ask the hard questions and is badly needed because they know the form and system. I will help her anyway I can. "Don't sleep on it. " Sovereign American --- MADatCPS@aol.com wrote: Fwd: Affidavit of Special Visitation -----Original Message----- From: xxxxxxxx To: CPS Victim, xxxxxxxxxx Sent: Sun, 25 May 2008 4:53 pm Subject: Fw: Affidavit of Special Visitation Dear CPS Victim, xxxxxxxxxx: If you can get me $2,500 immediately and a total of $12,500 eventually (doesn't really matter when, but the total sometime by the end of this year or early next year), I think I can convert this affidavit into a $2. 5 million lawsuit with excellent chances of winning and having it upheld. I AM a disbarred attorney, but I can still do all or most of the footwork for you UNTIL Court appearances are necessary, but I also think I can get this organized as a case that some high profile national lawyers (e.g. from Harvard, where I'm planning on spending the summer) may be willing to step in. ? Your case is truly outrageous. ? I'll also work with your public defender in Pinellas and can travel anywhere in the U.S. that it might be necessary to help you prepare the evidence.
Call me if you're interested....but you don't want to sleep on this. ? If you don't want me to do it because of my status and background, please shop it around to other lawyers.....Your situation and status are amazing. ? I know a State Senator from Montana whose got a very similar story.... and he's become one of the top legal reform advocates in the U.S.
CEL -----Original Message----- From: CPS Victim, xxxxxxxxxx To: xxxxxx Date:Sun, 9 Mar 2008 23:35:42 -0700 (PDT) From:"xxxxxxxxx" Subject: Affidavit of Special Visitation AFFIDAVIT of SPECIAL VISITATION ? ? KNOW ALL MEN AND WOMEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that Affiant, Name of affiant, a natural living, breathing, man on the land being of sound mind and FIRST BEING DULY SWORN, willfully and voluntarily deposes and says, and as ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICE: ? a) I, CPS Victim, xxxxxxxxxx, am competent to handle matters and for stating the matters set forth herein and all matters must be expressed to be resolved.
? b) I, CPS Victim, xxxxxxxxxx, have personal kno wledge concerning the facts stated herein.
? c) All the facts stated herein are true, correct, complete, and certain, not misleading, made in good faith, admissible as evidence, and if stating as I, CPS Victim, xxxxxxxxxx, shall so state.
? FACT EXAMPLES HERE ? FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of any law, which would deprive affiant or family of any Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States of America, which would force compliance or demand that we incriminate ourselves.
? FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of evidence, which demonstrates that there are exigent circumstances relative to the health of the children.
? FACT: Affiant is not a defendant in any action pending review, nor is Affiant standing as the accused in a criminal action.
? FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of any document which purports to prove that CPS Victim, xxxxxxxxxx, is willfully meriting contempt or dishonorably disobeying a lawful court order.
? FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of any lawful court order with Seal and teste of process affixed thereto.
? FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of any document that absent consent, a warrant, probable cause, or exigent circumstances, is not an unreasonable search and seizure and in violation My NAME and MY CHILDS NAME. [1] ? ? FACT. Affiant is not in receipt of any document which purports to claim that I CPS Victim, xxxxxxxxxx, am not === message truncated === Sovereign American http://godissovereignfast. com/ To purchase Without Prejudice UCC 1-207; go to http://www. 1stbooks. com/bookview/20674
