Click on the link below to read, as reported in The Dallas VoicePearland police say there’s no reason to believe murdered teen Joshua Wilkerson was gay, posted November 22, 2010.





by Mother Teresa of Calcutta

To Julian Jacob Worrell of Genealogy Saloom, Advice from Your Real Mummy:

I found this “wisdom” in another teacher’s classroom many years ago.  I hope this message finds you, kind of like the trail of breadcrumbs that Hansel and Gretel left behind to find their way home in the fairy tale story that Mommy used to read to you.   I am so sorry that they are keeping you from me.  My dearest julian, you can come home, and you will someday.  You were right when you said that you and mommy didn’t do anything wrong.  Don’t let anybody tell you anything different, Sweetheart.  Mommy is always thinking about you and wishing you were here.  I never stop talking about you or fighting for your right to have your real mommy and your real daddy.WISDOM.MOTHER THERESA

You are just little right now, and some people are taking advantage of that.  Try not to let others confuse you.  Know that you are so loved.  Always remember that Jesus loves you, and so does Mommy, so sleep well tonight and be the sweet little boy that I know you are and always have been.  God is watching all the time.   Nobody can go to court to pay God to avoid the Truth or to do what they want them to do, no matter how awful and cruel.   God is the Truth.

P.S. I saw some wild sunflowers the other day and it made me think of how I used to miss you so much when you were at preschool and Mummy was working, so I would stop and pick them in the middle of the day if I happened to see them to give to you at the end of the day when I picked you up.  You used to flash this big, bright smile that could light up the whole room and yell “Mommy!” as you came running to give me a big hug and a big kiss at the end of each day when we got to go home from work and preschool.sunflower.single with very blue sky


US Supreme Court’s Landmark Reversal on Police “Immunity”: Tolan v. Cotton (May 2014)

US Supreme Court’s Landmark

Reversal of Police “Immunity”:

Tolan v. Cotton

(May 2014)

For the first time in approximately ten years (read Hope v. Pelzer and Groh v. Ramirez, 2003 and 2004) the US Supreme Court reversed a US Circuit Court affirmation of the district court’s decision to grant good faith–“qualified”–“immunity” (and “sovereign” or “absolute” “immunity”) to a police officer.  This case arose  out of the for the Federal  US Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.  

The u.S constitutional challenge was pursuant to a Fourth Amendment (US CONST. amendment IV) excessive force claim (related to unreasonable, unlawful search and seizure) combined with an equal protection claim (U.S. CONST. amendment XIV.).

To read the High Court’s landmark opinion in Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. ___ (decided May 05, 2014)(per curiam), click on the link below.

US Supreme Court Decision in Tolan v. Cotton,;

Plaintiff’s Opening Brief/Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the US Supreme Court for The united States of America

Defendant’s Reply

Fair Use Notice and Disclaimer


Author of this blog, Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and our Children Who Want to Come Home, and Especially to My Little Julian, is not a lawyer, attorney, or legal practitioner, therefore, no information contained herein this post and/or blog could be (mis)construed as “legal advice.”  Anyone who exercises he/r rights, and private property sometimes called “child” for deceptive, possibly malicious or retaliatory, and profiteering/privateering and in the “best interests” . . . of the “state” Texas General and other Funds at one’s own peril, risk, and/ or self-fulfillment.  The choice is yours.

  • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.
  • (2) Content in this post is protected by Julian’s Real Mummy’s First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the uS Constitution and  Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal, uS Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights, pursuant to the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, and/or requirement/demand, then contact Author of this blog immediately as fair notice and due diligence requires so that Author shall act lawfully and reasonably with expedience pursuant to any supplemental knowledge.

US Supreme Court, Families, On-Trial Again: Loudermilks v. Joe Arpaio




US Supreme Court, Parents and Private Property, “Children,” On-Trial Again

But Will They “Rain-in Kid Grabbing Enforcers”

on Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment

US Constitutional Grounds?


To resolve a Circuit Court split,  The US Supreme Court, once again (recall a differently tracked case in 2011–Sacks v. Sacks,  on writ of certiorari from Florida) must decide whether or not to decide the rights of parents to stand their ground against unlawful, illegal, thus, wrongful and unreasonable search and seizure of their private property described as “children” against  Child Protective Services in collaboration with police officers within the context  of Amendment IV  (read note 1)and Amendment XIV (read note 2)(interpreted in this context, right to “family integrity”), Federal US Constitution , or,  The Constitution for the united States of America, (1776), Bill of Rights ratifies and applies directly to the people through the Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the same, The Constitution for the united States of America (1776), Bill of Rights ratifies and applies directly to the people.  

Regarding private property rights, one’s own body, “child” as mentioned by author above,  citing natural, God-given and implied rights (US CONST.amendment.IX)(read note 3) and common sense. (read also, (Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)) ;  (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232, 32 L. Ed. 2d 15, 92 S. Ct. 1526 (1972)) ; Board of Directors v. Rotary Club, 481 U.S. 537, 545, 107 S. Ct. 1940, 95 L. Ed. 2d 474 (1987)-quoting Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 619-20, 104 S. Ct. 3244, 82 L. Ed. 2d 462 (1984)(holding that “The First Amendment protects those relationships, including family relationships, that presuppose deep attachments and commitments to the necessarily few other individuals with whom one shares not only a special community of thoughts, experiences, and beliefs, but also distinctly personal aspects of one’s life”) ; (Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985))), but not the incorrect Internet versions.

Regarding Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment issues that this case confronts,  read also, (Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972)(holding that “[T]he integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”) ; (Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973))( Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U.S. 528, 534 (1963))(holding–holds, that where a mother confessed “only after the police had told her that state financial aid for her infant children would be cut off, and her children taken from her, if she did not ‘cooperate,’” the confession “must be deemed not voluntary, but coerced.” In other words, when the state issues an ultimatum to a parent—cooperate or lose your kids— the parent’s “will has been overborne and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired.” Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 225)) ; (Croft v. Westmoreland County of Children and Youth Services, 103 F. 3d 1123 (3d Cir.1997))(holding that a CPS investigator’s ultimatum to the father to move out or have his children placed in foster care violated the family’s right to family integrity)([A] state has no interest in protecting children from their parents unless it has some reasonable and articulable evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that a child has been abused or is in imminent danger of abuse.”)) ; (Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861, 1866 (2014)(holding that “in cases alleging unreasonable searches or seizures,” courts “must take care not to define a case’s ‘context’ in a manner that imports generally disputed factual propositions” into the clearly established prong of qualified ‘immunity’ when considering a motion for summary judgment ; (Doe v. Heck, 327 F. 3d 492 (7th Cir. 2003))(holding that an unjustified threat by CPS investigators to remove children from the custody of their parents if they failed to cooperate stated a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment).Note that in Doe, the threat was made by phone, not in person at the home with several deputies present ; (Read also,  Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002))(holding that, “Moreover, officials can still be on notice that their conduct violates established law even in novel factual circumstances.”).

Neither was this a case in which, regarding “exigent circumstances,” CPS investigators/police were not “forced to make a split-second decision in response to a rapidly unfolding chain of events.” (citing  Ryburn v. Huff, 132 S. Ct. 987, 992 (2012). 

The Home School League Defense Association Team, initially lead by attorney Michael Farris and his crew, have managed to see this case through to the top in what has been what some might describe as a roller-coaster of a ride.  The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, for Arizona, overturned a great ruling by (Hon.) Judge Earl H. Carroll   in the case of parents John and Tiffany Loudermilk’s at the trial court level in 2007.  The case arose out of Sheriff Joseph/”Joe” Arpaio’s notorious Maricopa County.  Click on t he link below to read  The Homeschool League Defense’s petition on writ of certiorari below, but for the parents.  Notably, each and every such association has consistently failed mothers and their healthy and he/r private property, “child.”  Reporters or editing censors for WND and The Houston Chronicle, and now, even The Houston Press, and even Randy Wallace also had the opportunity  to pick-up certain stories that it lost, for whatever un-reason.  For whatever other reasons, T.S. Radio Show and host, Marti Oakely and he/r NASGA group did pick-up opportunities others evaded their duty to Americans to report the real truth, and all sides, or, “dimensions,” of it.

Reporter for WND, link to story below, neglects to mention that in addition to the Third (3rd) and Seventh (7th) US Circuit Courts’ stance, the US Fifth (5th) Circuit Court of Appeals also decided that “from now on” it is clear that police officers and child protective services workers “will not” ‘receive’  (good faith or “qualified,” nor “absolute”) “immunity,” in the groundbreaking Gates v. Texas Department of Regulatory and Protective Services case (2008), that CPS and police officers would no longer receive qualified or absolute “immunity” for snatching children in collaboration (see “collaborative”–conspiratorial–Memorandum of Understanding/”MOU’s” which are usually required to be signed by individual counties, cities, and municipalities between child protective services and police or code enforcement “peace” officers or “CERTS”).  Read Croft v. Westmoreland County of Children and Youth Services, 103 F.3d 1123 (3d Cir. 1997) Doe v. Heck, 327 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2003).

 It is this primarily First, Fourth Amendment , Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Thirteenth Amendment u.S Constitutional issue, and also natural and implied guaranteed “inalienable” and “unalienable” rights guaranteed, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” currently presented, on reverse and remand on subject matter jurisdiction, to the Federal US Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston division in the case possibly mislabeled or entered by clerks as “Saloom v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, et al” (4:13-cv-1002, US SDTX; read also USCA 13-20605, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals), currently stayed by order of Texas State  Attorney General’s Litigation Division and Texas District and County Clerk’s and Court Reporter/Recorder’s International Association, which has also wrongfully refused to enter police officers as defendants on the same docket on which they are substantively and properly included.  

Read also, Federal “civil” and u.S. Constitutional and federal rights, The Civil Rights Act of 1871, re-codified as The Civil Rights Act of 1964,  statutes 42 U.S.C., sections 1983 (violation of rights under color of law) , 1985 (conspiracy against rights), 1986 (“neglect to protect,” or, “Good Samaritan” laws), and 1988 (The Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Award Act of 1976), Privacy Act of 1974, Title V, section 552 (a) and alleged “revised” law, Freedom of Information Act), Federal Criminal law statute,  18 U.S. Code Chapter 96,  §§ 1961-1968- RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT of 1970 (“RICO Act of 1970“).

God bless the real America, and especially the mothers and their private property described as “children” by profiteering “States” and clearly for profit “non-for-profit” “joint public-private” ventures all across America via the Federal Social Security Act, Titles IV-A, B, C, D, and E, and Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Marriage Initiative and Child Support Enforcement/Victim’s Assistance Programs, who, now more than ever, have earned the blessing by anyone’s “objective” standards.

The following  cases need also be preserved for the next Nuremberg trials (though some some nunc pro tunc, and already decided):

Amy and little Markel Charron (Harris County, Houston, Texas) Sandra/”Sam” Grazzini-Rucki and teenagers (Dakota County, MN), Kimberly Sperling (Minnesota), Leah Banken-Dannewitz and children (Carver County, Minnesota), Caroline Rice and children (Minnesota), Sunny Kelly and little Max (Connecticut), Lori Handrahan and little Mila (Maine), Sharon and Bill and little Donnelly Keaton Burns (Riverside County, California),  Miriam Blank and daughters, Kayla, Gabrielle, Zipporah, Daphna, and Hannah (Harris County, Houston, Texas, transported to Utah with, among others, Norma Willcockson), “Michelle” and Jack and Thomas Murphy (Newnan, Georgia, Coweta County), Rubi and little Lexi Dillon (Orange County, California), rather, “Tammy” and “Jonah” “Rief,” Mary Seguin (Rhode Island), mother of Amy Dye in Kentucky, though Amy is gone, but not forgotten, the real parents of little Alexandria Hill, gone, but not forgotten (Austin, Texas; Travis County; Rockdale, Texas; Milam County),  Cherie Safapou and little Saam (Marin County, California), Linda Marie Sacks and he/r two daughters (Ormond Beach, Florida), Robin Carr and Laura and Matthew (Rockwall, TX, Dallas County, a Tyler, Texas substitute judge, and KY state police), Kathy Lee Schlopp and son (Rhode Island and Massachusetts state police), Nancy Kovacic and private property described as ” children” (Cuyahoga County, Ohio; US Sixth Circuit court denied summary judgment to police and cps workers for unlawful “removal”);  Andrea Lebow and little Kendall (Amarillo, Texas; Potter County), Maribel Vega (San Antonio, Texas; Bexar County), mother of, now gone, but not forgotten, little girl Logan Marr (Maine), “little angel,” now gone, but not forgotten, Anna Celeste Lowe  and he/r mother and brother who survive he/r (Louisiana),  Michelle Mammaro and little Daniella (Phillipsburg, New Jersey), Tina Kufner, Theola Nealy and three children, including he/r baby daughter who was given exclusively to reported rapist social worker, Peter Nelson (Milwaukee, Wisconsin), E.J. Perth (US Virgin Islands), “Emily Court” (Minnesota), Kyla Estes, mother of Baby Lance (Maple Valley, Washington; King County; Port Orchard, Washington; Kitsap County), “J. Molly Murphy” and lost little boy (Texas), “Mad Angel,” Angela and he/r children (Washington State), Emily Joy Lake and mother, Lynae Lake, a.k.a. “Anne White” (Portland, Oregon Multnomah County; Michigan), Monika and little Dylan Wesolowski (Virginia, Illinois), Pamela and Will Gaston, daugher, Melissa, and family (Oregon; Marion County),  Rebecca McLaughlin (Massachusetts), now passed, but not forgotten, little Buddy Cook and his foster family with Angel Cook and also natural mother (Cleburne, Texas),  Rachel Alintoff (Monmouth County, New Jersey), Patricia Pisciotti (Monmouth County, New Jersey), Karin  Wolf (Monmouth County, New Jersey), Karen Anderson and child, as reported (Davis, California; Yolo County),  Deborah Lynne Connor, as reported (Tarrant County, Texas near Dallas/Fort Worth, Utah, Montana), Connie Bedwell and little Aaliyah (Placer county, California); Jan Pittard (Tarrant County, Texas near Dallas/Fort Worth), Kathy Seidel and Katia (Tarrant County near Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas), Michelle Greaves (Massachusetts, New Jersey), Melissa Harris (Connecticut), Megan and Baby Alexander (Connecticut), Susan Skipp (Connecticut), Marina (Connecticut), Justina Pelletier and family (Massachusetts), Patricia Moodian and he/r sons (Alameda County, California; settled); Johneisha Kemper and baby girl (Los Angeles, California); Misty Lynn Williams (Sallisaw Oklahoma; Sequoyah County; corrected by federal judge in Oklahoma City, lawyer defending, Ty Clevenger ); Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick and he/r two daughers (Seal Beach, California; Orange County; corrected with aid of lawyer, Shawn McMillan); Stacy Lynn and he/r little boy (Fort Collins, Colorado), Linda Wiegand and sons, one of whom is named “Ben” (Connecticut), Jennie Morton and he/r little children (Conroe, Montgomery County, Texas just north of Houston), Maile and little Hayden (California), now passed, but not forgotten, little “Lookie Pookie,” Luke Boruskiewicz and mother and father, Linda Jo Martin and lost child, Yvonne Mason, Connie Valentine, “Mississippi Mom” and lost daughter, Miranda’s mommy,  Trish Schaefer (Harris/Montgomery County, Houston, Texas),  now gone, but not forgotten, Kendrea Jackson, gone but not forgotten, and also he/r mother and baby brother who survive he/r (Brooklyn Park, Minnesota),  mother Lacey Bahr Dryer, who it was recently reported took he/r own life because rogue social workers stole he/r children (Parma, Ohio), so many more, and especially dear to author of this blog’s heart, my little julian-jacob: of family saloom (Pearland, Texas; Brazoria County; Houston, Tomball, Texas; Harris County).

John and Tiffany Loudermilk v. Joe Arpaio, Petition on Writ of Certiorari, June 12, 2015

History of the Homeschool League Defense/Loudermilks’ Case

For more on this story, read  Bob Unruh’s reporting for WND,  Supremes Asked to Rein-in-Kid-Grabbing Enforcers, at


1.  The Fourth Amendment guarantees that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” U.S. CONST. amend. IV. 

2.  Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the ‘privileges’ or ‘immunities’ of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. CONST. amend. XIV. 

3.  Amendment IX, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Fair Use Notice and Disclaimer


Author of this blog, Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and our Children Who Want to Come Home, and Especially to My Little Julian, is not a lawyer, attorney, or legal practitioner, therefore, no information contained herein this post and/or blog could be (mis)construed as “legal advice.”  Anyone who exercises he/r rights, and private property sometimes called “child” for deceptive, possibly malicious or retaliatory, and profiteering/privateering and in the “best interests” . . . of the “state” Texas General and other Funds at one’s own peril, risk, and/ or self-fulfillment.  The choice is yours.

  • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.
  • (2) Content in this post is protected by Julian’s Real Mummy’s First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the uS Constitution and  Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal, uS Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights, under the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, and/or requirement/demand, then contact Author of this blog immediately as fair notice and due diligence requires so that Author shall act lawfully and reasonably with expedience pursuant to any supplemental knowledge.


From Womb to Tomb: Child Slavery in the Courts

PressTV: From womb to tomb: Child slavery and US courts, by Brett Redmayne-Titley

Fri Jul 18, 2014 12:20PM GMT

By Brett Redmayne-Titley

US family courts are stealing children from the loving arms of innocent parents.

In this ongoing exclusive report for Press TV, the previous examples of Ruby Dillon and her daughter Lexi have show that Child Protective Services (CPS) has no interest in “protection” of children. Its sole motivation is personal profit.

No child is safe.

Down the road in San Diego County a young boy is missing, taken by a man who is not the father, not even a parent. Innocent mother Tammy Rief, who is from Georgia and has never lived in California, now sits in a California prison. Despite an Alabama court order keeping the kidnapper away from her child, and another court order giving Tammy, the mother, full custody, a California judge abused his court to steal her son, Jonah, from his home in Georgia and give him to a man documented to have abused her son. [“Tammy” and “Jonah Rief,”];[];[]; []; []; [ Tammy’s police report,];[].

Without Tammy Rief’s knowledge Judge Gregory W. Pollack was working in far away California with the kidnapper, Brian Sullivan, to have the FBI steal her and her son from Georgia.

This short story of injustice and child trafficking, applied to a San Diego Superior Court judge, Gregory W. Pollack, shows the unique, fraudulent and illegal applications of California law in favor of kidnapping.

For Tammy losing her son, Jonah, started silently in an unknown court not in Georgia; California divorce court.

Tammy has never been married. Much less to anyone in California. Tammy had briefly dated the kidnapper, Brian Sullivan, in South Carolina but had not heard from him in over three years before he suddenly attempted to achieve custody of Jonah in her state of residence, Georgia. Tammy proved to the Georgia court that the kidnapper could not be the biological father and that Jonah was at risk to the kidnapper. Hence the judge issued the two restraining orders establishing full custody to Tammy and preventing the kidnapper anywhere near Jonah.

But, that was Alabama.

Undaunted, the kidnapper somehow got a California divorce court judge to award him custody of Jonah although he had never been married to Ruby or taken a paternity test. The California court had no jurisdiction, or legal right, to hear a divorce case or any case that did not have a connection to California law and California residency. Worse, Ruby did not receive notice, per law, of the out-of-state proceedings she had no knowledge of. [].

It turns out that California divorce court is also a favorable place to steal children. The judge awarded custody of Jonah to the kidnapper, Brian Sullivan. Armed with this fraudulent California court decision the kidnapper was off to an even more favorable court, that of San Diego’s finest judge Gregory W. Pollack. Using the divorce court decision and his own unsubstantiated, self-administered paternity test the judge secretly gave his client custody of Jonah, despite the Alabama court orders to the contrary.

Like his Orange County brethren judge Pollack threw Tammy’s due process and constitutional rights into the trash. When a jury was selected Judge Pollack allowed the jurors to be selected in a closed court and for some to have direct affiliations with the kidnapper, Brian Sullivan. The judge allowed so many legal violations that there is only one answer to the question why?

Next, an obviously corrupt judge Pollack issued a state warrant and had California Marshals arrest and render Jonah and Ruby from Georgia into his California jurisdiction and control.

Stuck in San Diego by court order, Jonah soon returns from a court ordered weekend visit with his father. Witnesses attest that his mother, upon Jonah’s arrival, saw Jonah had been battered and had rope burns on both wrists and on his ankles. Jonah told his mother that his father had abused him along with several other men.

Every species of mother will fearlessly and selflessly defend their child against anyone and anything. Tammy was no different.

Faced with a virtual Twilight Zone episode of unfathomable facts, she grabbed Jonah and sprinted to the nearest out-of-state hospital. Arizona. Examination showed Jonah had been physically and sexually abused. Arizona police were called in. Reports taken. Witness statements taken. Criminal charges discussed. Evidence prepared.

Then the Arizona police arrested Tammy and Jonah and sent them back to the kidnapper and Judge Pollack who charged Tammy with kidnapping her son. She is now finishing a three-year prison sentence.

Similar stories of court ordered kidnapping have been reported in Detroit, MI, Florida and Oklahoma

Jonah was last reported to have entered Australia some months ago.


In a land becoming endemically corrupt, morals in America have no value. Ruby and Lexi’s case follows a familiar plot. It has been repeated again and again. Like all evil plots there are multiple actors, all working as a conspiracy. A conspiracy to traffic children. A conspiracy to create the perfect circle of crime.

If you have assets, and those assets are connected, the plot follows a similar script to Ruby’s and Tammy’s.

A pedophile such as, Mahathep “Mathew” Srikureja, finds a bottom feeding attorney with no morals, like Mathew DeArmey, who has secret and influential contacts with immoral CPS Minor’s Councils, like Harold LaFlamme. The corrupt Minor’s Council has connections to immoral family court judges like Wilson, Waltz, or Salter. The Minor’s council also has contacts with immoral CPS doctors, foster care homes, and child/ parent monitoring companies who, as co-conspirators, do and say what the Minor’s council tells them to do and say.

Together they all collude to fabricate evidence and testimony, exclude evidence from the purview of the court, manipulate the child’s testimony against the abusive criminal parent, and provide “protection”, not to the child, but to criminal parent having the good fortune and money to find an attorney like Mathew DeArmey.

If you are more modest means, however, and CPS knocks on your door be very, very, worried.


California leads the nation with 80,000 children in foster care. Thirty years ago CPS added nine children a month, yet today it takes1600 children per month into custody. The state receives between 125-150,000 thousand dollars per child per year ($12 billion), but the child must be in foster care for more than a year. Intriguingly, the average stay in Los Angeles is twenty months and in San Francisco twenty-nine. Hmm.

L. Wallace Pate is a child rights attorney who has followed CPS and its decline into barbarism for over thirty years. She outlined the CPS plot in a recent KFI-Radio interview.

Children are money. For a “Perverse Financial Incentive,” CPS and their parasitic attorneys, and hirelings need new children and they take them. Infants are the plum target as they are of highest value to adoption agencies that also make out on the deal. The courts have ruled it illegal and inadmissible, yet new mother’s on any social assistance, such as medicaid, are uniformly drug tested. Ms. Pate appropriately calls this, “junk science.”

Although these tests have been proven to be inaccurate in seventy-six percent of sample tests, and hospitals are precluded from providing that info to CPS, mothers who test positive have their infant seized by CPS. If the mother has other children they are taken from her, too.

Only 7% of CPS cases against parents involve sexual abuse and 10% percent are for physical abuse. The remaining eighty-three percent are children taken for any reason CPS can fabricate. The judge will, of course, go along with anything.

Then comes the required trial. Even though a criminal trial has a thirty day deadline, family court is a mere fifteen. But the cases never reach trial, since if there was a trial, the facts would favor the parents and CPS would lose the one-hundred-fifty grand at the base of their empire. Just ask Ruby Dillon.

Corrupt public defenders talk the desperate parents into, “taking a plea,” threatening them with the lie that this the fastest way to get their child back. Almost always they take this advice. If not, the judge simply restricts all evidence.

Now that the child is in the clutches of foster care the parents have almost no rights. Now come the horrors of sexual and physical abuse. Kids in foster care are ten times more likely to be abused and six times more likely to die than the national average. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors commissioned a secret report, until it was leaked to the LA Times (that shelved the story), on existing CPS practices. It’s no wonder they tried to keep it secret.

Five hundred- seventy children died in a recent eighteen month period while under CPS supervision. Two hundred and seventy of these were in CPS custody.

Next. Forced institutional sedation.

Within ninety days 80% of the new child inmates will be forced to take some type of psychotropic drug. A federal study recently showed a huge disparity in the use of these drugs in foster homes verses those prescribed by doctors of loving families. In Texas it was four times the state average. CPS has a convenient reason for this endemic drug use; “Separation Anxiety.”

No shit.

Not coincidentally California leads the nation in prison population with over 600,000 inmates. 70% percent have been in foster care. This creates a steady supply of very cheap prison labor to be used by a privatized prison industry that cares more for its stock dividends than human treatment. This cheap labor saves these manufacturing companies billions of dollars every year.

The final insult comes when the courts requires that the parent, who tried in vain to rescue their son or daughter from CPS, now pay back their court appointed legal fees, and those of CPS as well. Of course, CPS does not have to provide a receipt. The courts, however, will gladly garnish wages, seize tax refunds, and order arrest if these aggrieved parents do not obey.



Children’s welfare means little to CPS or their minions who are feeding on limitless taxpayer funds. These funds are spread amongst the old guard insiders network of corruption.

Judges keep high paying jobs. Forty hand-picked law firms in twenty counties have been paid over one billion dollars over the past ten years.

The foster care corporations that warehouse the kidnapped children are paid handsomely, as are the parental monitoring companies.

The pharmaceutical companies get a “captured” clientele of 80,000 artificially, and highly medicated patients and an endless demand for their mind altering drugs.

The adoption companies make millions placing stolen children in homes and even get up to an $8,000 bonus from the state for each child placed. For the un-saleable child many foster homes are promoting a career choice and training; prostitution.

Finally, if this staggering CPS example of the “social safety net” does not work out, there is prison.

The circle of the crime is complete. From womb to tomb.


The power of CPS and their pet courts and judges have been covering their trail of corruption with targeted intimidation and, quite likely, murder. Few reporters are willing to take on the subject. Stories abound of defense attorneys signing on to a custody case only to drop it after a first private meeting with a judge, or dedicated reporters suddenly losing interest.

Some are deceased.

Martin Burns of Fox News/Los Angeles put considerable time into the issue of CPS and Superior Court corruption. He filed several stories for Fox, under his shows title, “Lost In The System.” One show was specifically about Lexi.

Burns boldly confronted Harold LaFlamme, Mathew DeArmey, and the rapist father, Mahathep “Mathew” Srikureja, after a hearing before judge Waltz. He confronted them aggressively in front of the camera, asking questions about their many legal conflicts of interest. As the rapist comically hid his face in DeArmey’s coat tails they fled just as quickly as they could, both collectively shuffling away with the fathers face appropriately joined at DeArmey’s posterior.

Martin Burns was found at the bottom of a ravine near a trail where he liked to walk. Accident? The LA Coroner ruled it a heart attack. So how did he get to the bottom of that cliff thirty feet from the trail?

His counterpart at Fox, “Lori” [Gina] Silva, who had co-written some of Burns’ stories as well as doing research, suddenly lost interest in CPS. She is still at Fox News/LA. She does not return calls.

Georgia State Sen. Nancy Schaefer and her husband of thirty-four years were by all reports loving and inseparable. Ruled a murder/suicide their deaths coincided with the her announcement of the completion of a four-year documentary project she had personally funded to expose names and crimes against children. Following her death, the documentary failed to surface. Its whereabouts is still unknown.

Greed knows no bounds. Greed has no soul. Any court willing to pry a child from the arms of his innocent mother or father has lost any value for life, much less humanity.

World-wide, America has lost all respect for humanity.

Now, it feasts on its own children.


Now, it feasts on its own children.

Brett Redmayne-Titley spent his formative years with his family in Queensland, Australia, Ghana, West Africa, and the Bahamas. Visiting over fifty counties over four decades he has seen the world slowly destroyed by greed, capitalism and empire. Not content to watch from the side lines, Brett has taken up his pen to tell the truth about important stories. On-scene reporting is his specialty. Traveling to the story he has written in-depth, multi-part articles about the Keystone XL Pipeline, Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant, the 2012 Democratic National Convention, the police killing of Evan Kwik and many more.  His articles have been published by dozens of on-line news services. More articles by Brett Redmayne-Titley.

UPDATE on Sentencing of Protective Mom Tammy!

Child Molester Protector D.A. Bonnie Dumanis (through her minion, D.D.A. Jill Lindberg) requested the maximum sentence for Tammi (3 years), and, not surprisingly, Child Molester Protector Judge Kenneth So agreed, while admitting Tammy believed taking Jonah into hiding was necessary for his safety.

This is a contradiction which is obvious to any sane person. NO mother should be prosecuted, much less sentenced, if she goes into hiding because she believes her child is being sexually abused and there is corroborating evidence to confirm it. ‪#‎DontProsecuteProtectiveMoms‬

Even so, with time served and other factors, Tammy should be released within a few months. She has a strong case on appeal due to the many violations of Tammi’s and the public’s rights committed by Judge So. Safe Kids will update as we get info.

San Diego Sex Abuse Scandal Continues Friday with Sentencing of Protective Mom for “Abduction”
Criminal Court Tactics Employed to Cover Up Abuse Exposed

Judge Kenneth So, D.A. Bonnie Dumanis and Public Defender Kristin Scogin all colluded in covering up substantial evidence of sexual abuse in order to secure Protective Mom Tammy’s conviction. Now Judge So will sentence Tammy for the crime of protecting her son.

CourtWatchers documented the many contortions these officials went through in their coordinated effort to cover up the sexual abuse of Little Jonah and convict PM Tammy Rief. This was obviously done to cover up for the family court cover up by the notorious Judges Gregory Pollack and Eugenia Eyherabide, as well as by CPS.

Here is some of the evidence of the cover up compiled:
[Evidence of the sexual abuse:]

• Public Defender Kristin Scogin only called two of Tammy’s friends as defense witnesses, because they could be dismissed as biased. She refused to call any of the 50 other professional/ objective witnesses Tammy wanted, including law enforcement, CPS workers, M.D.’s and mental health professionals from three different counties who had evidence of the abuse.

• P.D. Scogin refused to call the most important witness in the case: the N.C. detective who Little Jonah disclosed the sexual abuse to when they were caught in hiding. (In contrast, the prosecuting attorney called the N.C. sergeant who made the arrest helping to convict Tammy.) When Safe Kids asked Scogin to comment on why she did not call the detective, she refused.

• Judge So would not allow the N.C. police report which documented these disclosures by Jonah.

• P.D. Scogin called Tammy paranoid at least 10 times in her closing arguments, supporting the view that the abuse did not really happen; it was only in Tammy’s head, i.e. “she’s crazy” used so often in cover ups. The other tactic, “she’s lying/alienating”, could not be used because it had never been used in family court (the prolific “mad or bad” tactic).

• Judge So encouraged the prosecution to use the argument that the abuse has been investigated many times, but never substantiated, supporting the theory that Tammy was paranoid. (Of course, there was never a proper investigation and CPS and family court had colluded in the cover up, as usual.)

• Judge So defined “malicious” (the requirement for conviction) for the jury as anytime somebody does a wrongful act, as opposed to when somebody deliberately does a wrongful act, so as to incriminate Tammy.

• Important evidence by Tammy’s friends was excluded, or simply not included, because Scogin did not ask the proper questions.

• Judge So prevented Tammy’s friends from speaking freely, even under direct examination, keeping much important evidence out. (It is supposed to be opposing counsel that stops the witness through valid objections, not the judge.)

• The jury was rigged. CourtWatchers were excluded from jury selection in violation of Constitutional rights of the public and the defendant to prevent them from witnessing the rigging. Tammy reported that the jury members selected were favorable to the prosecution and Scogin would not allow her to participate at all in the selection. And Judge So sealed the jury selection proceeding and jury names.

• Tammy was kept in jail for almost a year without bond or with a too-high bond, making it difficult for her to get support outside of the corrupt Scogin in preparing her case.

• P.D. Scogin tried to get Tammy declared mentally incompetent. That is when Safe Kids Intl became involved. Our court watch helped convince Judge Brannigan to not rule her incompetent. If she had been, she would have likely been institutionalized and medicated into silence about the sexual abuse.

• Judge So refused Tammy’s Marsden motion to get Scogin off her case. Judge So tricked a courtwatcher into leaving by acting like the hearing was finished and then starting up again after she was gone. He then sealed the Marsden motion with nobody to hear what justification he used to seal it.

• Tammy’s hearings were often not on calendar or were placed there at the last minute to deter court watchers.

• Judge So, Scogin and P.A. Jill Lindberg often went into chambers together for extended periods of time, under the guise of it being a “side bar”, to discuss their strategy off the record.

• Judge So sealed Tammy’s family court file, as it was a record of how long and how hard she had fought to protect Jonah and contained important evidence.

• D.A. Dumanis covered up Jonah’s disclosure to N.C. and the disclosure to CPS after Tammy was arrested and Jonah was back with his identified molester.

COURT WATCH Friday, 8:30 am, San Diego Superior Court, Dept. 55, Judge Kenneth So. 220 Broadway, San Diego, CA.

*You can support Tammy and/or express your outrage at the cover up with comments here. You can also express thanks to the courtwatchers who helped compile all the evidence of the cover up, especially PM Kathy Brown!

NOTE: In the event Tammy is released with time served on Friday, she needs a place to stay in So. Cal., preferably San Diego, for a month or so. If anyone can put her up, please PM Safe Kids. Thanks for supporting a Protective Mom!

Link to event with more info:

Link to event re: declaring Tammy mentally incompetent:

*D.A. Bonnie Dumanis is up for re-election. Spread the word that she covers up sexual abuse. She covered up in Damon and Jacob’s case, and Protective Mom Joyce’s case (her ex was later convicted of molesting other children).

fair use and disclaimer


Author of this blog, Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and our Children Who Want to Come Home, and Especially to My Little Julian, is not a lawyer, attorney, or legal practitioner, therefore, no information contained herein this post and/or blog could be (mis)construed as “legal advice.”  Anyone who exercises he/r rights, and private property sometimes called “child” for deceptive, possibly malicious or retaliatory, and profiteering/privateering and in the “best interests” . . . of the “state” Texas General and other Funds at one’s own peril, risk, and/ or self-fulfillment.  The choice is yours.

  • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.
  • (2) Content in this post is protected by Julian’s Real Mummy’s First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the uS Constitution and  Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal, uS Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights, under the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, and/or requirement/demand, then contact Author of this blog immediately as fair notice and due diligence requires so that Author shall act lawfully and reasonably with expedience pursuant to any supplemental knowledge.


Brooke Muncie and son.Corrupt Collin County

MOTHER, Brooke Leigh Muncie, PICTURED WITH  son


RE-BLOGGING FROM a blog I just found,


“Power is the great evil with which we are contending. We have divided power between three branches of government and erected checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. However, where is the check on the power of the judiciary? If we fail to check the power of the judiciary, I predict that we will eventually live under judicial tyranny.” – Patrick Henry

” ‘Fishy’ Amber Alert Issued By McKinney Police Department”

posted by

 Corrupt Courts of Collin County 


09 May 2011

I generally do not watch the local news broadcasts, but as I flipped through channels yesterday evening, I caught the tail end of a story about an Amber Alert that had been issued by the McKinney Police.  The fragment of the story that I heard said that a woman had “kidnapped” her son during a supervised visit at a McKinney park earlier that day.  The police spokesman said the woman was considered dangerous and that they feared the child was in “grave or immediate danger.”  I started watching too late in the story to get the full name of the mother and her son, but at the end of the story the reporter described the car that “Muncie” was thought to be driving.

Normally, I would have filed the information away in my mind and kept turning the channels; however, something bothered me about what I had heard.  Why was this woman having a “supervised” visit on a Sunday afternoon at a park?  Who was supervising the visit and how did they let her “kidnap” her son? 

I have become familiar enough with various CPS cases in Collin County to know that if this were a CPS case, the visitation would have been scheduled to occur at the Children’s Advocacy Center (AKA The Temple of Doom).  Even in a divorce/custody dispute case, I would expect to hear that the visit was scheduled to occur at a place such as Hannah’s House (one of the many “non-profit” parasite entities sucking the life out of families here in Collin County).

I will admit right now that I was feeling lazy yesterday evening.   By the time I heard this story on the news, I had already resigned myself to sitting on the couch for pretty much the rest of the night.  But the details of the story kept bothering me.  Unwilling to expend too much effort, I came to a compromise with myself…I reached for my iPad (thank you Apple!) and searched for the lat name of “Muncie” and “Amber Alert”, which yielded the following story from the KHOU (Houston) website:

Hunt on for 2-year-old missing in North Texas

by Associated Press

Posted on May 8, 2011 at 4:55 PM

Updated yesterday at 4:55 PM

McKINNEY, Texas — An alert has been issued to law enforcement in North Texas and the Ark-La-Tex to be on the lookout for a 2-year-old McKinney boy and a 28-year-old woman he is thought to be with.

A McKinney Police Department statement describes 2-year-old William Jacob Weltzer as a 3-foot-2 white boy weighing 31 pounds with blonde hair, blue eyes and last seen wearing a white polo shirt and royal blue-and-white checkered shorts. Also sought is 28-year-old Brooke Leigh Muncie, a 5-foot-3-inch, 126-pound white woman with brown hair and blue eyes.

The police statement doesn’t say if the two are related, but it says the boy is thought “to be in grave or immediate danger.”

Muncie was last heard from in McKinney driving a blue 2003 Chrysler with a Kentucky plate number 029KRR.

Now my curiosity was piqued enough to make the long walk to the computer in my home office.  I was curious if Brooke Muncie was involved in litigation here in Collin County.

A quick search of the court dockets on the Collin County website confirmed my intuition…Brooke Muncie has an open divorce/custody case in the 416th District Court (The Honorable Chris Oldner [cough] presiding).  The docket sheet showed the following:

Petitioner Muncie-Weltzer, Brooke     Michael R PuhlRetained


Respondent Weltzer, William Brent     Linda RisingerRetained


Events & Orders of the Court

07/21/2010     Original Petition for Divorce (OCA)
07/23/2010     Original Answer
07/23/2010     Counter PetitionOriginal CounterPetition For Divorce
08/05/2010     Order Requiring Completiton of For Kid’s Sake Seminar
03/10/2011     Temporary Orders Hearing  (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Oldner, Chris)
03/10/2011     General Docket EntryAgreement approved and Order signed
03/10/2011     Temporary Order
04/13/2011     Request for Copies
04/18/2011     Appearance of CounselEntry of Appearance
04/18/2011     Original AnswerPetitioner’s Answer to Respondent’s Original Counterpetition for Divorce


Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer


Author of this blog, Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and our Children Who Want to Come Home, and Especially to My Little Julian, is not a lawyer, attorney, or legal practitioner, therefore, no information contained herein this post and/or blog could be (mis)construed as “legal advice.”  Anyone who exercises he/r rights, and private property sometimes called “child” for deceptive, possibly malicious or retaliatory, and profiteering/privateering and in the “best interests” . . . of the “state” Texas General and other Funds at one’s own peril, risk, and/ or self-fulfillment.  The choice is yours.

  • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.
  • (2) Content in this post is protected by Julian’s Real Mummy’s First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the uS Constitution and  Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal, uS Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights, under the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, and/or requirement/demand, then contact Author of this blog immediately as fair notice and due diligence requires so that Author shall act lawfully and reasonably with expedience pursuant to any supplemental knowledge.



Low-Income [high education] Mothers Without Custody:

Who Are They and Where Are Their Children?*


University of Maryland at Baltimore

The School of Social Work and Community Planning

As a focus of research, the non-custodial “low- income” [ high education]mother, particularly the mother who has received Aid to Families of Dependent Children, (AFDC) has been virtually ignored. Yet, she is central to many fields of study-foster care, child support enforcement, child maltreatment, and single parents. This article re-ports on 8 re-spondents from a co-hort of 518, urban, AFDC mothers who lost custody of all children during the 17 months following their se-lection in-to t/he study sample.

Fin-d-i-n-g-s   re-ve-al    t/h-at mos-t -of/ – the – chi-l-d / r-e-n -w-e-r-e- li-vi-n-g   W/IT-H/ re-lat-i-v-es;    

the major-it-y /  of /  mother/ s- had  lo-n-g- stand-ing   M-E-N—T–AL –  HE-a-L-t/h-pr-o-b-le-ms; and mos-t of the mothers not   o-n-l-y   wan/t-ed   ‘more’   child-re-n,  b-u-t  were  tr-y-i-n-g    to     get        . . . 

            . . .  p- re  -g  -n  –  ant.

Re-c-e-n-t     li-te-r-a-t-u-r-e-  has   pro-vi-d-ed   a   b-e-ginn-i-n-g    u-n-d-er-s-tand-ing  of  mothers who  do  not  have   c-u-stody   follow-ing   a   mar-i-t-al    b-re-a-k-up ( Fischer   &   Cardea,   1981; Greif,    1986;   Greif,    1987; Greif &   Pabst,   1988;   Herrerias,    1984;   Paskowicz,   1982 ).

Th-ese  stu-d-ies, ho-w-e-ve-r, have  fo-c-u-sed    on    on-l-y    o-n-e       seg-ment    of    t/he “non-custodial” mo-t/he/r              pop-u-lat-ion       w-hi-te,    mid-d-le-d  -as   -s,         once       mar-r-i-ed,       li-k-el-y      to          h-ave            ch-i-l-d-ren   who,  a -re li-vi-n-g- with t/he-ir- father, and who ma-y    have     re-li-nqu-i-s/h-ed          c-u-s-t-o-d-y          

v o-lun-tar-i-l-y.  

W/hi-le t/h-is seg-me-n-t of t/he pop-u-lat-ion ma-y be t/he largest, it is no-t  t/he  onl-y  o-ne  with  w-hich  soci-al  wo-rk-ers have co-n-t-act.

Child     “p-ro-tec-t-i-o-n”    and    fo-s   -t –  e-r    ca-re   c-a-se-wo-rk-er-s    pro-vid-e-se-r -vi-c-es  to po-p   -u,-  lat  –  i-ons    pre-dominan-tl-y    co-n-s-is-t-i-n-g   of   “ lo-w -in-co-me, ”   [ hi-g-h ed-u-cat-i-on]    sin-g-le,  

 no- ‘n – c-u-st’-o—di-al- mot/he/r-s –w/ho-m/u-s-t’   (m a) n- a-g-e    re-   u- n–  ‘if’- i  [  being  t/he  ]  ‘cat’-i-o-n”   with    or     p-er-man-en-t – se – -par-at -i-o-n       f-ro-m     t- he- ir –     ch-i-l-d--re-n.

*The re-se-arch re-port-ed i-n t/h/is pa-p-er  w- as- p – artial-l-y sup-  ported by g-ran-t a-ward FPR-000028-01-0 f-r-om   t/he   Off/ice  of  Po-p/-u-lat-i-o-n  A-ff-airs to Susan Zuravin. 163

 The p


———–pose of this paper

———— is to  fur-the/r under-stand-ing

———————of the noncustodial mother population

——————————served   b-y   m/a/n-y  c-h-i-l-d

————————— we/l/fare

————————————— pro-g-rams   b-y    

———————————–exami n


——————–a su b——————————————-

—————————————–p- o- p – u – l -a t  —————————————–

—————————-  i  –  o-  n  -that

……………………….. has not been very  well–

……………………………..  stud/i-ed   mothe_rs-  

———————————————-with ” low-incomes”  [ hi-g-h edu-cat-i-o-n ]who may never have



………………i–e-d– may  not  

……………  white and  have 

 be/co-me . ……………………..



……………………………………………… con-t-a-ct  with child protective services

 …………………………………..Eight (8) mothe/  rs who lost custody of all child-ren

………………………………….during the 17-months

…………………………………………………..following their se-lect-ion in-to a/

………………………………………………………….stud-y  sample of 518 AF DC mothers

———————–for-m t/he  ba-s-I-S   four

…………………..o/u/r    di-s

….–  s –c-u-s –s  –i–o—n.


Literature Review

To gather information about low-income, noncustodial mothers, we reviewed five areas of study, all of which have potential for focusing on issues of custody and low-income families. Little information was found. The noncustodial mother literature, as noted above, has almost exdusively focused on the middle-income mother without custody. The recent foster care literature (e.g., Fanshel, 1976; Rzepnicki, 1987) does not, to the best of our knowledge, focus on the needs of noncustodial mothers as differentiated from those of noncustodial fathers or twoparent families.

Moreover, it does not address situations where parents have children living in any of a variety of informal arrangements, i.e., with relatives, spouses, etc. The child support enforcement literature (e.g., Cassety, 1984) predominantly focuses on noncustodial parents whose children are recipients of Aid to Families of Dependent Children (AFDC). However, because the vast majority of AFDC caretakers are single parent mothers, the typical child support enforcement study focuses on noncustodial fathers. The child maltreatment literature (e.g., Parke & Collmer, 1975; Polansky, Hally, & Polansky, 1975; Wolfe, 1985), is peripherally related to custody issues in that some maltreating parents lose custody of one or more children.

It does not, to the best of our knowledge, address noncustodial mothers separate and apart from parents who maintain custody, or parents who lose custody of some but not all of their children. In fact, most studies do not mention whether respondents have lost custody of any children. After analyzing our data and seeing the prevalence of alcohol and drug abuse among these mothers, we reviewed that body Low-Income Mothers Without Custody of literature, too. Loss of child custody as an outcome of drug addition was mentioned in one study (Nurco, Wegner, & Stephenson, 1982); the study reported that children were more likely to be removed from their parent(s) because of neglect rather than abuse.

Based on these reviews, there seems to be no one area of inquiry that daims these mothers as their own.  Consequently, we know little about them.

Yet, this little known population may be a fast-growing one for three reasons: (a) the increase in size of the population of single parent, female-headed families with children, many of whom are overburdened with financial and emotional problems; (b) the ever-increasing range of culturally sanctioned roles for women; and (c) the increased attention to and reporting of child maltreatment. Increases in this population have particular import for child welfare, namely an increase in the number of children at high risk for child maltreatment.

Theory (Finkelhor, 1985) as well as empirical findings (Finkelhor, 1980) suggest that children who live away from their natural mothers for periods of time may be at higher risk for sexual abuse than children who always live with their mothers. Studies of child maltreatment in formal, licensed foster care suggest that children living in such homes may be at higher risk for all types of maltreatment than the average child in the population-at-large (Bolton, Laner, & Gai, 1980).

And, if the maltreatment rate is high in licensed foster care-homes that are monitored, even if only on a periodic basis-one can only imagine how high the rate of maltreatment must be for informal care arrangements, i.e., custody arrangements with friends, neighbors, relatives, etc., situations that are not likely to be licensed and if monitored, not very dosely. For most middle-income mothers, concern about maltreatment is not an issue. Greif and Pabst’s survey (1988) of such mothers reveals that more than 90% of their children were living with their fathers.

Conceptual Framework-Characteristics of the Mother Without Custody Lacking specific theory or findings with regard to low-income, noncustodial mothers, we decided to use Belsky’s mo-d-e-l  of t/he de-ter-min-an-t-s of pa-r-en-t-ing, “o-ne de-r-i-v-e-d f-r-om re-se-ar-ch on t/he et-i-o-lo-g-y of ch-i-l-d ab-use and n-eglect” (Belsky, 1984, p. 83), as we-l-l a-s v-ar-i-ous h-y-p-o-t/he-se-s and fin-d-i-n-g-s f-ro-m t/he ch-i-l-d mal-treat-men-t and p-s-y-chi-atric li-t-er-a-t-u-re to i-d-ent-if-y a-re-as f-or st-u-d-y.

T/he-se  gu-id-e-s  a-re  par-t-i-c-u–lar-l-y  relevant  b-e-ca-use  o-ur  sam-p-l-e  in-c-l-u-d-e-s  a- l-ar-g-e  pro-‘portion’ of  ab-us-i-ng   and/o-r   ne-g-lect-i-n-g   fam-i-l-ie-s.  The two  areas  that we decided to explore-mental health problems and future childbearing plans-were selected from an array  of  potentially important topics on the basis of their relevance for clinical practice.  

Rationale – mental  health  problems

 The   Belsky  model  (1984)   p-o-s-i-t-s  “t/hre-e   gen-e-r-al   sour-ce-s   of   i-n-fl-u-en-c-e   on  par-en-t-al   fun-ct-ion-i-ng:

(a)  t/he   pa-re-nt-s’   o-n-t-o-genic   origins  and   per-son-al   p-sy-cho-logi-c-al   resources,

(b)  t/he   chi-l-d-‘s   character-i-s-t-i-c-s   of   in-di-vi-d-u-al-i-t-y,   and

(c)  co-n-t-e-x-t-u-al    s-o-ur-c-e-s –   of-    s-t-r-e-s-s     and   s-u-p-p-ort”    (p. 83).

Of    these    t/hree   sour-ce-s,    par-en-t    psy-chol-og-i-c-al     re-so-ur-c-es     r-e  id-ent-if-i-e-d    as     t/he     m-o-s-t   in-fl-u-e-n-t-i-a l     “no-t   si-mp-l-y    fo- r    t/he-i-r    d-i-re-ct    e-f-fe-ct    o-n    par-e-n-t-al     u-n-ct-i-o-n-i-n-g    b-u-t     al-so    be-cau-se    o-f    t/he    ro-le   t /he/y     un-do-ub-t-e-d-l-y     p-l-a-y    i-n    re-c-r-u-i-t-i-n-g    co-n-t-ex-t-u-al    sup-p-ort”   (p. 91).  

On  t /he   bas-i-s   of   Belsky’s   position  (1984)  regarding    the  salience   of   parental   psychological  resources  as  well  as  the  large  and  con-s-is–t-e-nt   body   of  findings   from  the   psychiatric   literature  which   reveal   that   ma-t-e-r-n-al    m-en-t-al    health    problems   (e.g., Colletta,  1983;  Longfellow, Zelkowitz, & Saunders, 1981; Susman, Trickett, Iannotti, Hollenbeck, & Zahn-Wexler, 1985; Weissman, Paykel, & Klerman, 1972)    have   a    particularly  adverse  affect  on  parenting    behaviors,   we   decided   to   ex-a-mi-n-e   mo-t/he/r’s   his/to/r/y   of  me/n/t/al  he-a-l-t-h   pro-b-l-e-m-s.

It seemed reasonable to surmise that the prevalence of mental health problems might be highest among mothers without custody. Moreover, on the basis of findings which show that neglectful mothers are more likely to have mental health problems than abusive or nonmaltreating mothers (Friedrich, Tyler, & Clark, 1985; Zuravin, 1988), we reasoned that more neglectful than abusive or control mothers might be noncustodial. Rationale-future childbearing plans The clinical impression of many caseworkers is that mothers who are separated from all of their children are at high risk for Low-Income Mothers Without Custody having another child. On the basis of information about the contracepting patterns of maltreating mothers alone (Zuravin, 1987), this impression seems to be a reasonable one.

     —     Both abusive and neglectful mothers are likely to use contraceptives less adequately and effectively than comparable control mothers.

     —     In addition, regardless of the problems non-custodial mothers had with their children, it is likely that these children were meeting some specific need-a need that the mother may well try to fulfill by having another child.

Thus, we reasoned that the non-custodial mothers may [ or may not ] be more likely to want to conceive another child than custodial mothers.

In summary, this presentation of information about [ only ]  eight (8) low-income [ high education], single mothers who do not have daily care and custody of any of their children,

     —     represents a beginning attempt to describe low-income [ high education], non-custodial mothers,         particularly those who once received AFDC.

While no claim is being made that these eight mothers are representative of non-custodial, low-income [and/or ] high education mothers, it is our hope that this presentation [ specifically not ‘peer-reviewed’ scientific, statistically (in)significant, biased and based report or real study or experiment] will help to

     (a)      stimulate interest in this under-studied population group,

     (b)      generate questions and hypotheses for future study, and

     (c)      provide the social work practitioner with a beginning description of this population.

Specific objectives are:

     (a)      to determine the composition of the noncustodial mother group by maltreatment status,

     (b)      to identify the range of situations in which the children of these mothers live,

     (c)      to characterize the “mental health problems,” [ or unique personality and character traits open to reasonably expansive interpretation across a variety of ‘spectrums’ or ‘lights’] as well as  [ equal to ] the future ‘child-bearing plan[t]s’ of these mothers.


Information for this exploratory, descriptive study of  eight [ 8 ]  low-income/ [ or high education], non-custodial mothers and their children comes from,

     —     an extensive set of interview and case record data (Zuravin & Taylor, 1987) on

     —     518 individuals,

     —     low-income, 

     —     urban,

     —     single

     —     parent

     —     mothers.

The original purpose of this data set was to identify ‘personal,’ ‘social,’ and ‘contextual’ factors that increase the low-income child’s risk of being physically abused and/or neglected. Methodological information pertinent to the construction of the data set is detailed in the final report to the funder (Zuravin & Taylor, 1987) and various papers (e.g., Zuravin, 1987; Zuravin, 1988).

Below is a summary of information about the 518 respondents and a description of measures pertinent to the above study objectives.

Study participants

The eight women who are described in this paper come from a group of 518 women  [ (wo) man ] who were interviewed in their homes by one of ten trained interviewers sometime during the period ” 9/ 1/84  to  6/30/85.”

These 518 women had five (5) [ one circumstantial ]   characteristic(s) in common.

During the study sampling month, January 1984, all were:

     (a)      residents of Baltimore, Maryland,

     (b)      single parents (defined as not being legally married),

     (c)      recipients of financial assistance from the Aid to families of Dependent Children program, (d) had custody of and provided daily care for at least one natural child, and

     (e)      had at least one natural child 12 years of age or younger even if care and custody of the child was no longer the mother’s responsibility.

The 518 were purposely selected to differ relative to

     —     how adequately they were known to care for their natural children;

     –119 respondents were known to Baltimore City Department of Social Services (BCDSS), Division of Child Protective Services for personally neglecting their children,

     —     118 were known to BCDSS for having one or more physically abused children, and

     —     281 were not known to BCDSS for having any neglected, physically abused, or sexually abused children.

—     The 237 maltreating respondents were selected from a specially constructed sampling frame prepared from the co-hort of 1,744 families who were receiving child “protective” services during the sampling month.

     —     The 281 control group respondents were selected from a specially constructed sampling frame prepared from the co-hort of 37,158 families who were,

     —     receiving AFDC,

     —      but not child protective services during the sampling month.

Measures Information pertinent to objective a-specific custody arrangements for children of the eight women-was obtained during the personal interview.

     —     Each respondent was asked to identify, by name, age, and relationship, to he/r each member of h/er household.

     –     During a comprehensive history of each of the mother’s livebirths, the

     —     interviewer [ doctor/nurse/pediatrician/ physician’s assistant/hospital social worker or administrator/cps/SS caseworker regularly tipped off by the same “interviewer” on duty or manager or director ],  

     —     “checked” the household roster, ” Low-Income Mothers Without Custody,” to

     —       see if the child in question [ ? ]  was currently living with the respondent.

     —     If the child was not among the household members, the interviewer asked,

     —     “Where is she/he living now?”

[ Every ] Where possible, information from the interview was corroborated and supplemented by information from the child protective service (CPS) “case record.”

Information pertinent to objective b-mental health problems and childbearing plans-

     —     was obtained during the personal interview, and, where possible, 

     —     possible [ pre-determined/ profiled/pre-selection bias ]  corroborated with information from the case record.

Given the pre valence of depression and substance abuse problems among the population of urban, low-income, young women (Robins, Helzer, Croughan, & Ratcliffe, 1981),  information was “obtained” [ intentionally and knowingly “coached” to fathers to falsely and maliciously report,  or presumed without actual research, without investigation, probable cause, reliability, or reasonable suspicion based on specific, relevant, articulable evidence that that individual mother . . . ] —

     —     about current and past “problems with depression, alcohol abuse, and drug abuse.”

     —     The Beck Depression Inventory (Beck, 1970) was used to assess severity of depressive symptoms,

     —      on the day of the interview, and

     —     a variety of questions from the Diagnostic Interview Schedule (Robins, Helzer, et al., 1981)

     —     were used to “obtain” [ guess to “substantiate” ] information about lifetime incidence of [ falsely reported or maliciously alleged with intent to prosecute and knowingly cause harm and inflict emotional distress, among other crimes and violations ] “depression as well as alcohol and drug problems. Relevant to the women’s future plans with respect to parenting,” two (2)  types of information were gathered:

     (a)      expectations for future pregnancies and family planning strategies around the time of the interview, and

     (b)     plans for assuming daily care and custody of their children.

To obtain information about future pregnancies and family planning strategies, respondents were asked a series of relevant questions taken from the National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 3 (National Center for Health Statistics, 1982).

     —     Information about [ CPS and irresponsible father’s collusive ] plans,

     —     for return of children’s  . . . “daily care and custody” . . . ” to the mothers” . . .  was “obtained,”

     —     where possible, from the child protective service case record narratives.

     —      Data analysis Because of the small size of the group of women who became noncustodial during the period from sampling to interview, formal statistical comparisons of this group with relevant groups of women who did not lose custody are “not warranted.”

Findings from such analyses would be seriously compromised by statistical conclusion validity problems (Cook & Campbell, 1979).

However, to give the reader a feel for how these women may differ from the other groups of women included in the study,

     —     we present comparable data “on all measures for the abusive (n = 116), neglectful (n = 113), and control (n = 281) mothers who had custody of at least one child on the day they were ‘interviewed’ for the study [ or unethical, uninformed, non-‘consented’  social experiment  or systematic, inhumate re’trauma’tization] .


Objective 1:

To determine the composition of the noncustodial mother group by maltreatment status,

The eight women who are the subjects of this paper became noncustodial sometime during the period 2/1/84 and the day they were interviewed, 7 to 17 months later.

All eight are from the two maltreatment samples. As predicted, the majority, six of the eight (75%), are from the neglect sample.

Objective 2:

To identify the range of situations in which the children of study mothers live Inspection of data on the custodians of the 29 children of the noncustodial mothers (see Table 1)

 —shows that the majority were not in formal. foster care on the day their mother was interviewed.

The largest proportion, 20 of 29, were with a relative.

The remaining

      —nine were in formal foster care,

     –  -seven in family care and two in group care.

Of the 20 children who were with a relative,

     –seven were with their father and

     –13 were with either a maternal or paternal relative.

Examining the identity of children’s custodians by mother’s former marital status suggests, as might be expected, that once-married mothers are more likely to have children who live with their fathers than mothers who were never married.

The two mothers who were married have children living with their father (the man to whom the mother was married), whereas only one of the six never married mothers has children living with their father.

Although highly detailed information on the transfer of daily care and custody for all 29 children is not available from the child protection case records, what is available leads to three conclusions:

(a) Child protective service intervention led to the transfers of custody.   It is not likely that any of these mothers would have voluntarily on her own sought to make suitable daily care and custody arrangements for any of their children. In many instances, it was necessary to involve juvenile court in the custody transfer. 


(b) Caseworkers tended to be extremely conservative about transfers of custody. A concerted effort was made to keep the children with their mother.

Most families received an extensive array of supportive services (i.e., day care, parent aide service, mental health services, parenting programs etc.), none of which they were able to effectively use, prior to removal of all the children.

(c) Every effort was made to keep the children out of formal foster home or group home care by making it a priority to place them with relatives.

Low-Income [high education]Mothers Without Custody

Table 1

Proportion of Children Living With Each of Three Types of Custodians and Proportion of Mothers Who Have Children With Each of the Three Types

Children      Mothers      Custodian      (n =29)      (n=8)*

Formal foster home or group home care      31%      (9)      50%      (4)

With childs father      24      (7)      37      (3)

With paternal or maternal relatives      44      (13)     37      (3)

*The number of mothers sums to more than eight because some of the mothers have children in more than one type of placement.

Objective 3:

To characterize the mental health problems as well as the future childbearing of low-income mothers without custody of their children Demographic description.

   Information about six demographic characteristics (displayed in Table 2) suggests that the eight noncustodial mothers may differ not only from the average control mother but also the average neglectful and abusive mother.

The mean age of the noncustodial mothers during the sampling month (1/84) was 26.1 years, younger than either the average neglectful or average abusive mother.

Four respondents were black and four were white, suggesting that white mothers may be over-represented among noncustodial mothers compared to the groups of abusive, neglectful, and control mothers.

Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare

Table 2

Demographic Characteristics of Eight Noncustodial Mothers and Neglectful, Abusive and Nonmaltreating Mothers with Custody of One or More Children  

   Noncustodial Neglect      Abuse      Control Characteristics     Column Totals (n =8) (n =113) (n =116) (n =281)

Age as of 1/84     26.1      28.3      27.7      25.9

Grade completed      9.1      9.8      10.4      11.1

Number of livebirths      3.6      3.9      3.0      1.9

Race (percent white)      50.0      31.0      23.3      13.5       (4)      (35)     (27)      (38)

Employment (percent never employed)

75.0      50.4      52.6      37.4 (6)     (57)     (61)      (105)

Marital history (percent never married)      75.0      55.8      69.0      73.0      (6)     (63)     (80)      (205)

        –Two (25%) of the mothers had been employed,

     –and two had been married,

     –quite a few less than the other three groups.

They lagged behind the other three groups of mothers relative to educational achievement.

The average number of years of education per mother is 9.1; not one of the eight had graduated from high school.

And finally, the eight mothers had given birth to 29 children, all of whom were still alive at the time of the study.

The number of children per mother ranged from one to seven with the average being 3.6.

Naturally, these mothers also differ from the middle-class, white mothers studied by others in that they

     –had less education,

     –were less likely to have ever been employed,

     –were less likely to have ever been married, and

     –had more children.

Also of interest is that the eight mothers all lost custody involuntarily as compared with many of the middle class mothers who, in part, as a response to the women’s movement, relinquished custody voluntarily (Greif & Pabst, 1988). Mental health problems. Inspection of the data in Table 3 suggests, as pre dicted, that

     —     non-custodial mothers may [ or may not] have more 

     —     “Low-Income” [high education]  Mothers Without Custody

Table 3

Depression, Drinking, andDrug Problems Characteristic of Eight Noncustodial Mothers and Neglectful, Abusive and Non-maltreating Mothers with Custody of One or More Children

Noncustodial      Neglect      Abuse      Control Characteristics      (n =8)      (n =113)      (n =116)      (n =281)

Mental health problems      100.0%      85.0%      81.9%      66.9%      (8)      (96)      (95)      (188)

Two weeks depression      75.0      69.0      60.3      47.3      (6)      (78)     (70)      (133)

Prenatal depression      62.5       58.4      46.6      35.6      (5)      (66)      (54)      (100)

BDI > 13      62.5      47.8      47.4      23.8      (5)     (54)      (55)      (67)

Drinking problem      62.5      21.2      14.7      6.1      (5)      (24)      (17)      (17)

Hard drugs       25.0      10.6      5.2      2.1      (2)      (12)      (6)      (6)

Differences are–

     —     most apparent with respect to alcohol and drug problems, and

     —     least apparent with respect to depression.


     —     the non-custodial mothers differ most from the custodial, non-maltreating mothers, and

     —     least from custodial neglectful mothers,

     —      suggesting that perhaps some of the custodial neglectful mothers may be at high risk for losing custody of their children.


     —     eight (8) of the custodial mothers (100%) reported problems with at least one of three 

     —     “mental health problems”

     —     -depression, alcohol, and/or drug usage.

     —     High percentages (87% and 82%)

          —     of the neglectful and abusive  mothers also

               —     reported one, 

               —     or more

                       —      of these three problems.

     —      Of the three (3)

          —     “mental health problems,

               —     “depression” [a “state” . . . of mind ]  was

                        —     by far [ =  ] the most pre valent.

     —     All eight of the non-custodial mothers

            —     gave a positive response

                     —     to at least one

                    —     of the three (3)

                            —      “indicators of depressive symptoms:

                                        (a)      five  (5) (63%) were

                                                     —     moderately or severely

                                                             —     de-pressed on the day of the “interview,”

                                                    —     according to their Beck Depression score (scored 14 or greater) (Beck, 1970);

                                          (b)      six (6) (75%) “re-ported” a life-time

                                                      —     incidence of two or more weeks of depression; and

                                           (c)     five (5)(63%) were [ also ] de-pressed after the birth

                                                     —     of at least one child even

                                                    —     though the child was “wanted and planned.”

     —     Of the eight (8)t mothers, five  (5) (62.5%)

            —    had serious enough

                   —     depressive symptoms to

                           —     obtain “formal help: three (3) (37.5%)” had been “hospitalized” 

                                  —     at least overnight  [ for at least the birth delivery in hospital ],

                          —     and two (2)

                                 —      had received help

                              —     on an outpatient basis

                                         —     from a “mental health professional.”

      —     Comparison of the non-custodial mothers with the three (3)  groups of custodial mothers,

              —     on the three,  depression measures,  reveals that they differmost from the non-maltreating mothers. 

                            —     Drinking and drug problems.

          —     It is with respect to these two (2) problems that the non-custodial mothers differ the most

                   —     from the remaining “abusive and neglectful mothers.”

                         —     “Having periods

         —     of drinking for a couple of days and [ then ] not,

                —       being able to sober up

                          —     was characteristic [ as opposed to a “mental illness” ]

                               —       of 63% of the non-custodial mothers,

                                        —     as opposed to

                                               —     24% of the “neglectful,” and

                                               —     15% of the “abusive” mothers. Using hard drugs (cocaine, PCP, heroin, or LSD) for two

                                      —     or more weeks [ with “questionable ‘ child'” }

                                              —     was characteristic

                       —       of 25% of  the non-custodial mothers

                                           —     compared to

                                                   —     11% of the neglectful,  and

                                                  —     6% of the abusive mothers.

                                                 —     Three of the five (60%) women with drinking problems and

                                                —     both of the women [ (wo) man }  

                                                        —     with drug problems

                                                                —    had received some sort of “formal” help “from a mental health professional.”

Unfortunately, this help seemed to have little impact on their serious substance abuse problems. Future childbearing plans.

Just as the non-custodial mothers differed from the custodial mothers with respect to alcohol and drug problems, they also differed with respect to their future childbearing plans.

     —     Despite the many serious [ series of ?} child,

           —     care problems experienced by these women and the very high

                    —     incidence of behavioral, physical, and emotional problems characteristic of their children, all six of the women who were not sterile (either because of tubal ligation or hysterectomy) wanted to have at least one more child.

All six (6) answered “yes” to the question, “Looking to the future, do you intend to have another baby at some time” (National Center for Health Statistics, 1982).

     –Five wanted one more child and

     –one wanted two more children.

So, while

     –100% of the noncustodial mothers who could have another child wanted another child,

     –only 43% of the neglectful (n = 67),

    –54% of the abusive (n = 59), and

     –57% of the control mothers (n = 202) wanted another child.

     –And, not only did the six women want more children, all six had a steady boyfriend and

     –all except one were trying to get pregnant by that boyfriend during the two week period prior to the interview.

In response to the question, “Did you use any method of birth control the last time you had intercourse?” (National Center for Health Statistics, 1982)

     –all five answered “no.”

The descriptive statistics provide some information about these eight low-income, noncustodial mothers; however, due to the size of the study group, the picture is an abbreviated one.

To fill in this picture, we dose with a detailed description of ‘Roberta,’ a mother who is’ typical’ of the eight women who form the basis of this study.

The story of Roberta.

Roberta is a 32-year-old, never-married, mother of three children.

All three are living with relatives:

     –John, age 14, and Mary, age 12, live with one family while Brenda, age 3, lives with another.

Roberta was first reported to child protective services during 1975 for severe neglect of John and Mary.

Since the time of this report, daily care and custody of these two children has been provided by their maternal aunt.

During 1982, Roberta was reported to child protective services for failure to make appropriate child care arrangements for Brenda, a complaint very similar to the one that had lost her custody of John and Mary.

Several days prior to the complaint, she had been found guilty of shoplifting and required to serve 9 days in city jail.

Rather than make appropriate arrangements for the care of Brenda (two years old at the time), she left Brenda with her current boyfriend, Bobby, a known heroin addict.

Bobby contacted a friend of Roberta’s who not only came and got Brenda but reported the problem to child protective services.

Problems with depression, drinking, and drugs have repeatedly punctuated Roberta’s life. She was positive for all three depression measures:

(a) depressed after the birth of each of her three children even though the first two were planned conceptions,

(b) felt sad, blue, and depressed for at least two consecutive weeks during the six months preceding the interview, and

(c) moderately depressed on the day of the interview, according to her Beck Depression Inventory score. And, as if the problems with depression were not enough, Roberta also had long-standing  Welfare ing problems with substance abuse.

As recent as six months prior to the interview she had periods of drinking for a couple of days or more without sobering up and of “shooting herself with heroin.”

The case record narratives describe heroin and alcohol addiction problems dating back as far as 1975-the year when she was first reported for child neglect.

Despite the long-standing mental health problems, the repeated encounters with child protective services for child neglect, and the loss of custody of all her children, Roberta not only planned to have two more children before she reached 35, she was working on getting pregnant.

At last intercourse (the night before the interview), neither she nor Bobby had used any method of birth control.

During the year preceding the interview, they used birth control about half the time.


The data describe these mothers as having more problems than their counterparts either in the low-income [high education] population (maltreators and controls) or in the “non-custodial” mother literature.



           The questions we sought . . .

 . . .answers . . . to . . .

 . . .and their findings–

. . .point

 . . .in many . . .

 . . .directions.

1. Overrepresentation of neglect– as opposed to abuse– among the eight non-custodial mother situations directs attention to the adequacy of services for intact neglectful families.

Even though neglectful mothers may suffer more frequently from mental health problems (Freidrich, Tyler, et al., 1985; Zuravin, 1988), it is important to pose the question-are we providing sufficient services, soon enough to these families?

Conceivably, neglectful situations do not receive services until the mother’s mental health problems have deteriorated to the point where they are virtually ‘intractable.’

According to Wolock and Horowitz (1984), “in spite of data showing that neglect is no less severe than physical abuse, there is some evidence that preoccupation with abuse [ or sexual assault, misconduct, or abuse of a child] may have led the protective service worker to view neglect as being of lesser severity, and, in the face of unmanageably high caseloads, to be more likely to screen out neglect cases” (p. 537) (also, see Selinske, 1984).

2.      The fact that many of their children are not in formal foster care raises the question of who is caring for these children. Low-Income Mothers Without Custody Are they in adequate placements with relatives or are they as much at risk for maltreatment as they were when living with their mothers?

This takes us back to one of the possible adverse consequences, mentioned earlier in the paper, of an increase in the population of low-income, noncustodial mothers.

We may be seeing a growing number of unmonitored, unattached children, ones that are shuffled from place to place after having been maltreated by their mothers.

Who know what happens to children, who, for example,

      –go with one relative, do not fit in there, and then move on to another and another informal placement.

     –More than two-thirds of this group of 29 children could be in this situation.

Are these children at high risk for ‘maltreatment ?’

Do these children constitute a large proportion of a rather newly recognized American social problem,

     –“runaway children and teenagers?” ? ? ?

3.      Most troubling of the facts learned about these eight mothers is that

     –the six who have not been sterilized want and are trying to have more children.

     –While middle class mothers have also started families again after becoming “non”-custodial (Greif & Pabst, 1988), it appears to occur in a small proportion of cases.

We could, thus hypothesize that having a low income and becoming noncustodial as a result of child protective service intervention are linked to a desire to have more children in a way that may not apply to middle-income non-custodial mothers.

Will history repeat itself for these mothers and their new children?

If so, short of mandatory sterilization, what is the “[‘final’] ‘solution?'”

There are at least three directions for future research on non-custodial mothers.

The first direction centers on

     –differences between low- and middle-“income”/ [education]/  non-custodial mothers.

For instance,

     –“Are non-custodial, low-income mothers, compared to non-custodial, middle-income mothers–

(a)      a less prevalent phenomenon?

(b)      less likely to voluntarily relinquish custody of their children than middle-income mothers?

(c)      more likely to become non-custodial involuntarily because of intractable mental health problems including depression and substance abuse?

(d)      more likely to want more children, and

     —     to try to have more children once they become non-custodial?

The second direction centers on

     –differences between low-income mothers who are non-custodial and comparable mothers who have custody     of some, but not all, of their children.

Do these two groups of mothers differ, and if so, how?

     –Does a mother lose some children on the way to losing all of her children?

     –And, if so, what could be done, preventively, to reverse this cycle?

And, finally,

     –the third direction centers on low-income fathers.

When and under what circumstances do they become custodians of their children (Greif & Zuravin, in press)?

How do those fathers who assume daily care and custody of their children differ [maritally and martially, as in, by force of law in times of “domestic ’emergency'”] from those who do not?

Traditionally, foster care literature has focused on and documented the consequences for children of being in formal foster family and group care placements.

It has not, however, to the best of our knowledge, addressed the issue of children who are living in “informal foster care arrangements”, i.e., the child who lives with relatives.

Given the current crisis in the formal foster care system-not enough placements to meet demand-placement of children with relatives is likely to increase. The consequences of these placements need documentation. Is the population of children in “informal foster care” growing?

Are children in “informal foster care” at increased risk for child maltreatment of all types?

Do they constitute a large proportion of the “runaway minor” problem?

We have attempted to show that more research on the lowincome, noncustodial mother is needed.

The study of this population, which has been virtually ignored, can provide a key to unlocking many fields of study relevant to social service policy and social work practice. References Belsky, J. (1984).

The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55, 83-96. Bolton, E, Laner, R., Gai, D. (1980).

For better or worse: Foster parents and foster children in an officially reported child maltreatment population. Children and Youth Services Bulletin, 3(1-2), 37-53. Cassety, J. (1984).

Child support: Emerging issues for practice. Social Casework, 65(2), 74-80. Colletta, N. (1983).

At risk for depression: A study of young mothers. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 142, 301-310. Cook, T. & Campbell, D. (1979).

Quasi-Experimentation: Design and analysis for field settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally College Publishing Company. Low-Income Mothers Without Custody Fanshel, D. (March, 1976).

Status changes of children in foster care: Final results of the Columbia University Longitudinal Study. Child Welfare, 55, 168-174. Finkelhor, D. (1985). Child sexual abuse: New theory and research. NY: Free Press. Fischer, J. & Cardea, J. (1981). Mothers living apart from their children: A study in stress and coping. Alternative Lifestyles, 4(2), 218-227. Friedrich, W., Tyler, J., & Clark, J. (1985).

Personality and psychophysiological variables in abusive, neglectful, and low-income control mothers. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 173(8), 449-460. Greif, G. (1986).

Mothers without custody and child support. Family Relations, 35(1), 87-93. Greif, G. (1987). Mothers without custody. Social Work, 32(1), 11-16. Greif, G. & Pabst, M. (1988).

Mothers without custody. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Greif, G. & Zuravin, S. (forthcoming).

Fathers: A placement resource for abused and neglected children? Child Welfare. Herrerias, C. (1984).

Non-custodial mothers: A study of self-concept and social interactions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. School of Social Work. University of Texas at Austin. Longfellow, C., Zelkowitz, P., & Saunders, E. (1981).

The quality of motherchild relationships. In D. Belle (Ed.), Lives in Stress: Women and Depression (pp. 163-176). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Nurco, D., Wegner, N., & Stephenson, P. (1982).

Female narcotic addicts: Changing profiles. Journal of Addiction and Health, 3(2), 62-105. Parke, R. & Collmer, C. (1975).

Child abuse: An interdisciplinary analysis. In M. Hetherington (Ed.), Review of Child Development Research, Volume 5 (pp. 509-589). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Paskowicz, P. (1982).

Absentee mothers. NY: Allenheld/Universe Books. Polansky, N., Hally, C., & Polansky, N. F. (1975).

Profile of neglect: A survey of the state of knowledge of child neglect. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (DHEW Publication No. 620-167/2260). Rzepnicki, T. (1987).

Recidivism of foster children returned to their own homes: A review of new directions for research. Social Service Review, 61(1), 56-70. Selinske, J. (1984).

Protecting CPS clients and workers. Public Welfare, 41(3), 30-35. Susman, E., Trickett, P., lannotti, R., Hollenbeck, B., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1985).

Child-rearing patterns in depressed, abusive, and normal mothers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 55(2), 237-251. Weissman, M., Paykel, M., & Klerman, G. (1972).

The depressed woman as a mother. Social Psychiatry, 7, 98-108. Wolfe, D. (1985).

Child abusive parents: An empirical review and analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97(3), 462-282. Wolock, I. & Horowitz, B. (1984).

Child maltreatment as a social problem: The neglect of neglect. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 54(4), 530- 543. 180

Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare Zuravin S. (1987).

Unplanned pregnancies, family planning problems, and child maltreatment. Family Relations, 36(2), 135-139. Zuravin, S. (1988).

Child abuse, child neglect, and maternal depression: Are they related? In National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect (Ed.), Child Neglect Monograph: Proceedings from a Symposium (pp. 20- 46). Washington, DC: National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. Zuravin, S. & Taylor, R. (1987).

Child care adequacy and family planning practices. Final report to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office of Population Affairs for Grant FPR 000028-02-0.


The research reported in this paper was partially supported by grant award,

          —     FPR-000028-01-0 from …… Affairs for Grant. FPR 000028-02-0.



Etiology of child maltreatment:   A developmental€cological analysis.

By Belsky, Jay

Psychological Bulletin

Vol 114(3), Nov 1993, 413-434.


Applies a developmental–ecological perspective to the question of the etiology of physical child abuse and neglect by organizing the paper around a variety of “contexts of maltreatment.”
The roles of parent and child characteristics and processes are considered (“developmental context”),
          —     including an examination of  “inter-generational transmission.”* * *
The “immediate interactional context” of maltreatment, which focuses on the parenting and parent–child interactional processes associated with abuse and neglect, is analyzed.
Finally, the “broader context” is discussed with 3 specific sub-sections dealing with the:
          —     community,
          —    cultural, and
          —     evolutionary contexts of child maltreatment.
Implications for intervention are con sidered, and future research directions are outlined. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer


Author of this blog, Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and our Children Who Want to Come Home, and Especially to My Little Julian, is not a lawyer, attorney, or legal practitioner, therefore, no information contained herein this post and/or blog could be (mis)construed as “legal advice.”  Anyone who exercises he/r rights, and private property sometimes called “child” for deceptive, possibly malicious or retaliatory, and profiteering/privateering and in the “best interests” . . . of the “state” Texas General and other Funds at one’s own peril, risk, and/ or self-fulfillment.  The choice is yours.

  • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.
  • (2) Content in this post is protected by Julian’s Real Mummy’s First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the uS Constitution and  Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal, uS Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights, under the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, and/or requirement/demand, then contact Author of this blog immediately as fair notice and due diligence requires so that Author shall act lawfully and reasonably with expedience pursuant to any supplemental knowledge.

Why Not Take All of Me

Taking the Least of You

Published: April 16, 2006

The Tissue-Industrial Complex

Click on the link below to read the pellucid translation of what is a black and white matter to some, whereas others call it a fertile gray area.  To others still, the article may resonate with a popular film that starred comedy legends actors Steve Martin and Lilly Tomlin (directed by Rob Reiner, 1984, film clip at and song by the country music artist Willie Nelson titled, “All of Me” (All Of Me” is track #18 on the album The Essential Willie Nelson. It was written by Simons, Seymour / Marks, Gerald, read more at ).  Remember other classics from the 1970’s and 1980’s  like the A-Team (about special Delta forces) and the “Six Million Dollar Man and the Bionic Woman” (starring Lee Majors and Lindsay Wagner)?  Why is it that Hollywood is always light years ahead of the game on the information scene? Have you found yourself with time to ponder what is really going-on?  For the skinny as reported by Rebecca Skloot for the New York Times in the following thought-provoking, if not mind-boggling article, Taking the Least of You: The Tissue-Industrial Complex, April 16, 2006,   Read-on.

Readers’ Opinions

Forum: Bioethics

Who should own the blood and tissue samples you give?

Anna O’Connell couldn’t find Ted. She stood bent at the waist on a frigid afternoon last December, her head and all its fuzzy red hair crammed into an old stand-up freezer that looked like something you get milk from at the corner store: tall, white with a bit of rust and a pull handle. That freezer is the first thing you see when you walk into the Fox Chase CancerCenter laboratory in Philadelphia, where O’Connell has spent decades as a staff scientist. She pushed aside vial after vial. “I know we still have him somewhere,” she yelled, her head still inside the freezer. “We’ve got serum from, like, 450,000 people.”

O’Connell grabbed a ragged cardboard box the size of a paperback book. “This is my treasure box,” she said. “I bet Ted’s in here.” The box held 56 tiny glass vials filled with clear blood serum — some from patients, others from laboratory animals, all taken and kept for hepatitis research. Around each vial, on a thin piece of tape, someone had scribbled information about each sample. “That’s duck,” O’Connell said, raising a vial to eye level. She dropped it and grabbed the next one. “Woodchuck.” She shook her head. “Geez, somebody should organize this.” She lifted vials one at a time, reading labels, dropping them back into the box and muttering, “Duck. . .duck. . .human, not Ted. . .duck. . .woodchuck. . .human, not Ted.. . .”

She looked over her shoulder at me and smiled apologetically. I had traveled many miles to learn about this man, Ted, whose blood was key in the creation of the first-ever hepatitis B vaccine decades earlier. “It’s strange,” O’Connell said, shaking her head. “I used him so much over the years, I usually keep a little bit of him in every freezer.”

Suddenly, she twirled to face me, arm extended, holding one tiny vial, grinning. “Here he is!” she said. “Ted Slavin.”

Though he died 21 years ago, Slavin is worth keeping track of. Not because his cells produced extremely valuable proteins that were important for scientific research. But because Slavin’s relationship to those cells was unique: they weren’t just part of his body; they were his business, his property. Slavin was one of the first people in history to decide that contrary to the way things usually work in science, he would maintain complete control over any blood and tissues removed from his body. He would determine who used them for research, how and, most important to Slavin, who made money from them.

This may not sound like a particularly groundbreaking idea, unless you consider it with a little-known fact: blood samples and other excised human tissues have an afterlife. When you go to the doctor for a routine blood test or mole removal, when you have an appendectomy, tonsillectomy or any other kind of ectomy, the stuff you leave behind doesn’t always get thrown out. Doctors, hospitals and laboratories keep them. Often indefinitely. Some get consent with admission forms that say something like, I give my doctor permission to dispose of my tissues or use them in research. Others don’t.

Today most Americans have their tissue on file somewhere. In 1999 the RAND Corporation published a report (the first and, so far, the last of its kind) with what it called a “conservative estimate” that more than 307 million tissue samples from more than 178 million people were stored in the United States. This number, the report said, was increasing by more than 20 million samples each year. These samples come from routine medical tests, operations, clinical trials and research donations. They sit in lab freezers, on shelves or in industrial vats of liquid nitrogen. They’re stored at military facilities, the F.B.I. and the National Institutes of Health. They’re in biotech companies and most hospitals. Biobanks store everything from appendixes, ovaries and skin to sphincters, testicles and fat. Not to mention blood samples taken from most children born in the United States since the late 60’s, when states started mandating screening newborns for genetic diseases.

Scientists and surgeons use these tissues to develop everything from flu vaccines to penis-enlargement products. They put cells in culture dishes and expose them to radiation, drugs, cosmetics, viruses, household chemicals and biological weapons and then study their responses. They remove DNA to examine it — and therefore the person it came from — gene by gene. Without those tissues, we would have no tests for diseases like hepatitis and H.I.V.; no vaccines for polio, smallpox, measles; none of the new promising drugs forleukemia, breast cancer, colon cancer. And without tissue samples, the developers of those products would be out billions of dollars.

How you should feel about all this isn’t obvious. Scientists aren’t stealing your arm or some vital organ. They’re just using tissue scraps you parted with voluntarily. But still, someone is taking part of you. And people often have a strong sense of ownership when it comes to their bodies. Even tiny scraps of it. Especially when they hear that someone else might be making money off those scraps. Or using them to uncover potentially damaging information about their genes and medical histories.

But a feeling of ownership doesn’t hold up in court. And at this point, the law isn’t clear on whether you have the right to own and control your tissues. When they’re part of your body, they’re clearly yours. Once they’re excised, things get murky.

The scale of tissue research is only getting bigger. “It used to be, some researcher in Florida had 60 samples in his freezer, then another guy in Utah had some in his,” says Kathy Hudson, a molecular biologist who directs the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University. “Now we’re talking about a massive, massive scale.” Within the last year, the National Cancer Institute started gathering what it expects will be millions of tissue samples for mapping cancer genes; the Genographic Project began doing the same to map human migration patterns, as did the N.I.H. to track disease genes.

Many scientists depend on access to tissues without the burden of restrictions that donors might make. (Restrictions like, You can use my tissues for this research, not thatresearch; don’t commercialize them, or do, and give me a cut.) At this point, scientists largely have the access they want. And they hope to keep it that way for fear that restrictions might slow research. But a growing number of activists — ethicists, lawyers, doctors and patients — are arguing cases and pushing for federal regulations that would change the status quo by granting people rights to control their tissues.

These days, their attention is focused on a potentially landmark court case: Washington University is claiming ownership of tissues from 6,000 patients who want their samples removed from the university’s prostate-cancer bank. Hudson, who has conducted focus groups about the public’s feelings on the tissue issue, says she believes that tissue rights have the potential to become a bona fide movement. “I could see a broader mobilization where people start saying, ‘No, you can’t take my tissues,”‘ she told me. “All I can say is, we better deal with the problems now instead of waiting until that happens.”

Anna O’Connell agrees. The day I visited her lab, she rolled a vial of Ted Slavin’s serum in her hand. We sat as she told me she wanted to see this issue settled, but she wanted to make one thing clear: scientists aren’t out to deceive people about their tissues. “We genuinely want to gather as much information as we can to advance research,” she said. “The problem is, in all that excitement, sometimes scientists don’t think about consequences.”

The $3 Billion Man

The tissue rights debate began in 1976, with a man named John Moore. He worked 12-hour days, 7 days a week, as a surveyor on the Alaska pipeline. He thought it was killing him. His gums bled; his belly swelled; bruises covered his body. It turned out that he had hairy-cell leukemia, a rare cancer that filled his spleen with malignant blood cells until it bulged like an overfilled inner tube. Moore found David Golde, a prominent cancer researcher at U.C.L.A., who said that removing his spleen was the only way to go. As Moore told it to the courts and the media, he signed a consent form saying that the hospital could “dispose of any severed tissue or member by cremation.” A normal spleen weighs less than a pound; Moore’s weighed 22. After the surgery, at the age of 31, Moore moved to Seattle, became an oyster salesman, went on with his life. But every few months, he flew to Los Angeles for follow-up exams with Golde.

At first, Moore didn’t think much of the trips. But after a few years of flying from Seattle to L.A. so that Golde could take bone marrow, blood and semen, Moore started thinking, Can’t a doctor in Seattle do this? When Moore asked Golde about doing his follow-ups in Seattle, Golde offered to pay for the plane tickets and put him up in style at the ritzy Beverly Wilshire. Moore didn’t start getting suspicious until one day in 1983 — seven years after his surgery — when a nurse handed him a consent form that said, “I (do, do not) voluntarily grant to the University of California all rights I, or my heirs, may have in any cell line or any other potential product which might be developed from the blood and/or bone marrow obtained from me.” At first, Moore circled “do.”

“It’s, like, you don’t want to rock the boat,” Moore told Discover magazine years later. “You think maybe this guy will cut you off, and you’re going to die or something.” But when the nurse gave him an identical form during his next visit, Moore asked whether Golde was doing something commercial with his tissues. According to Moore, Golde said that U.C.L.A. would never do such a thing. But Moore circled “do not,” just in case. That’s when Golde started calling, saying: You must have accidentally mis-signed the consent form. Come back and sign again. “I didn’t feel comfortable confronting him,” Moore said later, “so I said, ‘Gee, Doctor, I don’t know how I could have made that mistake.”‘ But he didn’t go back and sign.

After Moore got home, another consent form appeared in his mailbox with a sticker that said, “Circle I do.” He didn’t. Then Golde sent a letter urging Moore to sign the form. That’s when Moore sent the form to a lawyer. The lawyer did a quick database search and found that weeks before giving Moore the first consent form, Golde filed for a patent on Moore’s cells (the “Mo” cell line) and several valuable proteins those cells produced.

Golde had not licensed the patent to anyone. But according to the lawsuit Moore eventually filed, Golde had entered into agreements with a biotech company that gave him stocks and financing worth more than $3.5 million to “commercially develop” and “scientifically investigate” the cell line. At that point, the market value of the Mo cell line was predicted to reach $3 billion.

Most cells are worth nothing individually, but Moore’s were special. They produced several valuable proteins used to treat infections and cancer and carried a rare virus that might lead to treatments for H.I.V. Drug companies coveted these things, but Moore couldn’t sell or donate them because that would violate Golde’s patent. Technically, you can’t patent anything naturally occurring — like skin or blood. But once you alter something using human ingenuity, patents are fair game. Moore’s cells wouldn’t have survived outside his body unless Golde turned them into a cell line — self-perpetuating clones of one original cell. Hence the patent.

The way Moore saw it, he had been duped. So in 1984 he sued Golde and U.C.L.A. If he had just sued over accusations of deception, his case wouldn’t have been a landmark. But he took it further. He claimed property rights over those tissues and sued Golde for stealing them. He sued on 13 counts, including conversion (using or controlling someone else’s property without permission). With that, Moore became the first person to legally stake claim over his tissue and sue for profits and damages.

Golde, who died several years ago, denied Moore’s charges. And other scientists panicked. If excised tissues — including blood cells — became patients’ property, researchers taking them without detailed consent and explicit transfer of property rights up front would risk theft charges and more. Lawyers warned that a victory for Moore would “create chaos for researchers” and “[sound] the death knell to the university physician-scientist.” One researcher called it “a threat to the sharing of tissue for research purposes”; others worried that patients would hold out for a large cut and destroy the financial incentive to do research.

Round 1: A Los Angeles court said Moore had no case and dismissed it. Round 2: Moore appealed and won. In 1988, the California Court of Appeal ruled that a patient’s blood and tissues remain his property after being removed from his body. The judges pointed to the Protection of Human Subjects in Medical Experimentation Act, a 1978 California statute requiring that research on humans respect “the right of individuals to determine what is done to their own bodies.” They ruled: “A patient must have the ultimate power to control what becomes of his or her tissues. To hold otherwise would open the door to a massive invasion of human privacy and dignity in the name of medical progress.”

Then Golde appealed and won. In 1990, nearly seven years after Moore filed suit, the Supreme Court of California ruled against Moore on 11 counts in what has become the definitive statement on this issue: any ownership you might have in your tissues vanishes when they are removed from your body, with or without consent. When you leave tissues in a doctor’s office or a lab, you abandon them as waste. Anyone can take your garbage and sell it — the same goes for your tissues. Most important, the court said, Moore couldn’t own his cells, because that would conflict with Golde’s patent. Golde had “transformed” those cells into an invention. They were, the ruling said, the product of Golde’s “human ingenuity” and “inventive effort.”

Moore did prevail on two counts (lack of informed consent and breach of fiduciary duty), and the court said that Golde should have disclosed his financial interest in Moore’s tissues. It recognized the lack of regulation concerning consent and ownership and called on legislators to fix the problem. But that didn’t change the court’s decision. The court said that ruling in Moore’s favor might “destroy the economic incentive to conduct important medical research.” It worried that giving patients property rights would “hinder research by restricting access to the necessary raw materials” and create a field where “with every cell sample a researcher purchases a ticket in a litigation lottery.”

Moore appealed to the United States Supreme Court and was turned down. He died in 2001.

The Moore case released a flood of responses. Scientists and ethicists called for new legislation. Congress held tissue-research hearings; its committees uncovered millions of dollars in profits made by the biotechnology industry and concluded that “no single body of law, policy or ethics applies.” In 1995, President Bill Clinton asked his new National Bioethics Advisory Commission to examine the tissue-research controversy and recommend a solution. Four years later, it determined that federal oversight was “inadequate” and “ambiguous.” It recommended specific consent-policy changes but skirted the issue of ownership by simply saying it needed further investigation.

In response to the Moore case and the bioethics commission, some hospitals added lines to their consent forms saying that patients’ tissues might be used in research; others didn’t. Some inserted lines saying that patients waive commercial rights to their cells; others didn’t. But scientists kept using patients’ tissues.

“It’s ironic,” says Lori Andrews, director of the Institute for Science, Law and Technology at the Illinois Institute of Technology. “The Moore court’s concern was, If you gave a person property rights in their tissues, it would slow down research because people might withhold access for money.” According to Andrews — and a dissenting California Supreme Court judge — the ruling didn’t prevent commercialization; it just took patients out of the equation and emboldened scientists to commodify tissues in increasing numbers. Andrews argues that this made scientists less likely to share samples and results, which slows research. “The Moore decision backfired,” she says. “It just handed that commercial value to researchers.”
Lori Andrews’s career has focused almost exclusively on genetic rights and tissue issues. She has written 10 books and more than 100 articles and legal briefs; she has advised Congress, the World Health Organization, the National Institutes of Health and 14 foreign countries. She speaks regularly at conferences and seminars, writes popular articles and will soon publish a mass-market murder mystery called “Sequence,” which is essentially a 288-page collection of what-if situations illustrating the potential benefits of tissue research, and the potential dangers — like losing health insurance when a tissue test uncovers disease genes (which has happened).

Andrews maintains that people should control their tissues to protect themselves from potential harm. The way Andrews sees it, if someone breaks into your house and looks through your personal belongings, your privacy has been violated, which is illegal. That violation can be psychologically harmful, but it also leaves you vulnerable to someone using your information against you. Some 700 new mothers recently found out that doctors took their placentas without consent to test for abnormalities that might help defend against future lawsuits over birth defects. Then there are the members of the Native American Havasupai Tribe who said they felt violated and stigmatized after supplying samples for diabetes research and then having scientists use them to studyschizophrenia and inbreeding without consent.

Andrews argues that the law protects against even the most abstract harm. “Think about it,” she says. “I decide who gets my money after I die. It wouldn’t harm me if I died and you gave all my money to someone else. But there’s something psychologically beneficial to me as a living person to know I can give my money to whoever I want.” No one can say, She shouldn’t be allowed to do that with her money because that might not be most beneficial to society. But replace the word “money” in that sentence with “tissue,” and you’ve got precisely the logic her opponents use in the tissue debate. “Science is not the highest value in society,” Andrews says, pointing instead to things like autonomy and personal freedom. “Research isn’t a matter of conscription.”

Andrews has worked (pro bono) on the biggest tissue cases, including Moore, and the landmark 1989 York v. Jones trial between an infertile couple and their doctor, who refused to transfer their embryo to a new clinic. (That case set the precedent for people having property rights over their sperm, eggs and embryos.) Her next big case involved a family, the Greenbergs, who volunteered tissue samples and donated money to help a researcher find the gene for their children’s rare disorder, Canavan disease. When the researcher found the gene, according to court documents, he patented it without telling them. They sued for fraudulent concealment of the patent, lack of informed consent and unjust enrichment. As in the Moore case, which set the legal precedent for the Greenberg trial, the court found no grounds for a property claim. But it did find grounds for the Greenbergs’ unjust enrichment claim (because they invested “time and significant resources”). They received an undisclosed settlement, and no one involved can discuss it.

When it comes to patients having rights in tissue research, much to the chagrin of people like Andrews, nothing has ever been bigger than John Moore. “I’m really haunted by the Moore case,” she told me recently. “That case could have changed everything.”

The Antibody Business

There is one thing that the John Moore story makes clear: At this point, once someone removes tissue from your body, you have no control over what happens to it and no stake in potential profits. But here is one thing the Moore case didn’t address: Those tissues are still yours when attached to your body. If you know this ahead of time and if your tissues turn out to be valuable, you can control them and play the tissue market as well as any biotech company.

Technically it is illegal to sell human organs and tissues for transplants or medical treatments. But there is a thriving market: giving tissues away while charging steep fees for collecting and processing is perfectly legal, as is selling tissues for research, education and art. Industry-specific figures don’t exist, but estimates say that one human body can bring in anywhere from $10,000 to nearly $150,000.

That’s nothing compared with DNA — just one gene can be worth billions. Many companies provide tissues and DNA for research. Sometimes they’re small operations — one guy who picks up tissues at hospitals, then portions them out. Other times they’re huge corporations, like Ardais, which pays an undisclosed amount of money to the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center at Harvard, to the Duke University Medical Center and to many others for exclusive access to tissues collected from their patients’ operations, biopsies and blood draws.

Somehow, Ted Slavin saw this market coming decades ago. And he wanted a piece of the action. Slavin was a hemophiliac, and in the mid 1950’s the only treatment was an infusion of clotting factors from donor blood, which wasn’t screened for diseases. That meant that Slavin was exposed to the hepatitis B virus over and over again. But he didn’t know he had been exposed until the 1970’s, when a blood test found extremely high concentrations of valuable hepatitis B antibodies in his blood. And here is what makes Slavin’s case special: His doctor told him about those antibodies, and Slavin realized they were worth a lot of money.

That hepatitis B test — a multibillion-dollar product — required a steady supply of antibodies like Slavin’s. Pharmaceutical companies wanted antibodies to help create the first hepatitis B vaccine. The market was tremendous. And Slavin needed money: he worked, but he would have attacks, become disabled, lose jobs. So he started contacting laboratories and companies and asking if they wanted to buy his antibodies. They said yes in droves.

Slavin started selling his serum for as much as $10 a milliliter — at up to 500 milliliters per order — to anyone who wanted it. But he didn’t stop there: Slavin wanted money, but more than that, he wanted somebody to cure hepatitis B. He called the National Institutes of Health for a printout of every hepatitis B researcher. On that list, he found Baruch Blumberg, a researcher at the Fox Chase Cancer Center, who had won a Nobel Prize for discovering the hepatitis B antigen and who created the blood test that diagnosed Slavin’s disease. Slavin figured that if anybody was going to cure hepatitis B, it would be Blumberg. So he sat down and wrote a letter: Dear Dr. Blumberg, he said, I’d like you to use my tissues to find a cure for hepatitis B. I’ll give you all the antibodies you could need. And I’ll do it free.

That letter started a long partnership between Slavin, Blumberg, Anna O’Connell and others at Fox Chase. Blumberg’s lab used Slavin’s serum to help uncover the link between hepatitis B and liver cancer and to create the first hepatitis B vaccine, which has saved millions of lives. Meanwhile, as Slavin’s antibody business grew, he had an epiphany: he probably wasn’t the only patient out there with valuable blood. So he recruited other similarly endowed people and started a company. He called it Essential Biologicals, which eventually merged to become part of a massive biological-product corporation.

“I don’t see anything wrong in what Ted did,” O’Connell told me, swiveling in her office chair. “I don’t think you should extort money, but if you’re going to contribute to research, and there’s financial value in what you’re contributing, the option should be there if you want to use it.”

O’Connell has a unique perspective on these issues. She reached up, grabbed the rim of her turtleneck and yanked it down below her collar bone. “I’ve got road work,” she said, pointing to a complex mesh of scars covering her throat. “Thyroid cancer. When I was 28.”

Long before Slavin started selling his antibodies, O’Connell discovered that her cells were loaded with even more gold than his. Scientists were in the midst of developing a thyroid test, and O’Connell’s blood had precisely what they needed for it. “My numbers were way higher than Ted’s,” she told me, wiggling her eyebrows. A doctor took one look at her blood and asked for more. “I said, Sure, be my guest,” she said. Those scientists developed a valuable test; she received no money and didn’t think twice about it. She figures that’s what most people would do.

“Sure,” she said, “there are some greedy people who will try to get anything they can, but most people won’t demand money for their tissues unless they really need it, like Ted did.”

Many, like O’Connell, have simply donated valuable tissues. For others, it’s about control: several patient groups have created their own tissue banks so they can control the use of their tissues. Some object to patenting and require that results from research on their tissues remain publicly available; others do the opposite. One woman became a patent holder on the disease gene discovered in her children’s tissues, which lets her determine what research is done on it and how it is licensed. While most haven’t gone after profits, some have. And experts on both sides of the debate worry that profit-seekers might inhibit progress by insisting on unrealistic financial agreements or demanding money for tissues used in noncommercial and nonprofit research. But as long as patients are reasonable and don’t inhibit science, many researchers seem open to the idea of including them.

“Hey, this is a capitalist society,” says Wayne W. Grody, a U.C.L.A. molecular geneticist who has been at the center of this debate for years. “People like Slavin took advantage of that. You know, the way I see it is, If you think of doing that on the front end, more power to you.”

Question of Consent

The difference between Ted Slavin and John Moore wasn’t that Slavin owned his tissues and Moore didn’t. (No court ruled that Slavin had the right to control his excised tissues; he just did it.) The difference was information. Someone told Slavin that his tissues were special and that scientists might want them. So he was able to control his tissues by establishing his terms before anything left his body. In other words, he was informed, and he gave consent. In the end, the question isn’t whether people have the ability to control their tissues; it is how much science should be obligated (ethically and legally) to put them in the position to do so.

There is a federal law governing consent in human research. The Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, aka the Common Rule, requires that scientists tell people if they are participating in research, that the research is voluntary and that they can withdraw at any time without penalty. Consent forms must explain what the research is, how long it will last, any possible risks, whether participants will be compensated and more.

The Common Rule sounds like precisely what tissue rights advocates are fighting for. But it isn’t. The problem is, it was written to govern research on living, breathing humans, not their disembodied tissues. Its basic framework was adopted in 1981 and not updated to address the consent and ownership issues raised by the Moore case. It only covers federally financed research. Samples are exempt if they are anonymous (though assuring anonymity is difficult), “existing” and “publicly available” (though it doesn’t define either term). In the end, much of tissue research is not governed by the Common Rule.

Supporters of the status quo argue that passing new, tissue-specific legislation is unnecessary. They point to science’s internal oversight mechanisms: academic institutions (and many private companies) have institutional review boards that decide whether consent is needed for tissue research. There are many professional guidelines, like the American Medical Association’s code of ethics (which requires doctors to inform patients if their tissue samples might lead to profits). But guidelines aren’t laws; they are suggestions. And many tissue rights supporters say these internal mechanisms don’t work.

At this point, there is no uniformity, no standard and no guidance for how to proceed when it comes to consent and tissue research. Some institutions — like the Fox Chase Cancer Center — ask permission to keep tissues and let patients specify what research their samples will be used for. But others don’t. The norm is still a sentence or two saying leftover blood and tissue can be used for education and research. When it comes to profits, some consent forms come right out and say, “We may give or sell the specimen and certain medical information about you.” Others skip disclosure or say, “You will receive no reimbursement for donating tissue.” Still others admit confusion: “Your sample will be owned by [the university].. . .It is unknown whether you will be able to gain (participate in) any financial compensation (payment) from any benefits gained from this research.”

Ellen Wright Clayton, a physician and lawyer who is a director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics and Society at Vanderbilt University, says that the next step should be a “very public conversation.” Clayton says: “If someone presented a bill in Congress that said, As of today, when you go to the doctor for health care, your medical records and tissue samples can be used for research and nobody has to ask you — if the issue were stated that bluntly so people could really understand what’s happening and say they’re O.K. with it, that would make me more comfortable with what we’re currently doing. Because what’s happening now is not what people think is going on.”

Lori Andrews wants something more drastic: she recently published an article calling for people to get policy makers’ attention through becoming “conscientious objectors in the DNA draft” by refusing to give tissue samples. “This isn’t about trying to get patients a cut of the financial action,” she says. “It’s about allowing people to express their desires.” Clayton agrees. “It’s weird to say everybody gets money except the people providing the raw material,” she says. “But the fundamental problem here isn’t the money; it’s the notion that the people these tissues come from don’t matter.”

David Korn, senior vice president of the Association of American Medical Colleges, agrees that patients matter. But he also argues that tissue consent is shortsighted. “Sure,” he says, “consent feels nice. Letting people decide what’s going to happen with their tissue seems like the right thing to do. But consent diminishes the value of tissue.” To illustrate this, Korn points to the Spanish flu pandemic. In the 1990’s, scientists used stored tissue samples from a soldier who died in 1918 to recreate the virus’s genome and study why it was so deadly, with hopes of uncovering information about the current avian flu. Asking that soldier’s permission to take tissues for future genetic research would have been impossible, Korn says. “Think back to 1918,” he told me. “It was an inconceivable question!”

For Korn, the consent issue is overshadowed by a public responsibility to science: “I think people are morally obligated to allow their bits and pieces to be used to advance knowledge to help others. Since everybody benefits, everybody can accept the small risks of having their tissue scraps used in research.” But he does say that religious beliefs are grounds for exception. “If somebody says being buried without all their pieces will condemn them to wandering forever because they can’t get salvation, that’s legitimate, and people should respect it,” Korn says. (Though he acknowledges that people can’t raise those objections if they don’t understand their tissues are being used in the first place.)

Wayne W. Grody, the U.C.L.A. molecular geneticist, was once a fierce opponent of consent for tissue research. But after years of debating with people like Andrews and Clayton, he has become more moderate. “I’m pretty convinced that we should go the extra mile to have a good and complex consent process,” he told me. Still, he can’t imagine how it will work. “These tissues enter a pipeline of millions of other samples,” he said. “How are you going to distinguish, well, this patient said we can study colon cancer; the next one said we can do anything we want, but we can’t commercialize it. I mean, do they all have to be color-coded? I can’t imagine.” Regardless, Grody stresses that questions of consent should only apply to the collection of future samples, not the millions already stored. (“What are we going to do?” he says, “Throw them out?”)

If the issue of consent isn’t addressed, Robert F. Weir, founder of the biomedical ethics center at the University of Iowa and an author of “The Stored Tissue Issue,” sees only one outcome: “Patients turn to law as a last resort when they don’t see their participation being acknowledged.” Weir favors fewer lawsuits and more disclosure. “Let’s get these things on the table and come up with legal guidelines we can all live with,” he says. “Because going to court is the only other option.”

The Case That Could Change Everything

William Catalona is undeniably one of the top prostate surgeons in the world. He is surgeon to sheiks, to Stan Musial and Joe Torre, as well as thousands of other men. But he’s also a researcher. Which is why he and his patients ended up in a federal courtroom in St. Louis a year ago, in the first case to bring together all the biggest tissue issues: ownership, consent, control and a patient’s right to withdraw from tissue research.

Catalona started collecting prostate-cancer samples in the late 80’s. Today, the collection — one of the largest in the world — fills more than a dozen industrial freezers. It has resulted in some of the most important prostate-cancer advances (among other things, he used it to show that the P.S.A. test can predict most prostate cancer). The collection is vast: more than 4,000 prostate samples and 250,000 blood samples from 36,000 men. Some of these men came to him through newspaper and radio ads he placed seeking donors. Some came from other doctors. But many were his patients.

Catalona was committed to informing his patients: he provided detailed consent forms explaining the research and its risks, and his consent forms said, “Your participation is voluntary, and you may choose not to participate in this research study or withdraw your consent at any time.” He even sent a quarterly newsletter updating them on the studies. The problem was, Catalona and his patients saw things differently from his employer — Washington University.

Several years ago, Washington University took possession of the samples. The collection could be worth more than $15 million. In letters that surfaced in court, a Washington University official complained that Catalona gave free tissue samples to collaborators at a biotech company and that all the university gained in exchange for its support of Catalona was “the potential for Catalona to get a publication,” which it saw as “unacceptable.” (Catalona isn’t business savvy: he never tried to patent his specific use of the P.S.A. test, which could have made millions.) The university invested millions of dollars in developing that collection, it said: money for freezers, lab technicians, the building where he stored them. Some of that money came from multimillion-dollar federal research grants that Catalona brought into the university; some came from his patients. But the university paid Catalona’s salary and his health, malpractice and liability insurance; his contract said it owned his intellectual property. Therefore, the university argued, it owned those tissue samples.

So Catalona quit. He moved his lab to Northwestern University in Chicago and then sent letters to 10,000 patients, saying, “You have entrusted me with your samples, and I have used them for collaborative research that will help in your future medical care and in the care of others for years to come.” To continue this work, he wrote, “I need your assistance and your permission.” He enclosed a form for them to sign that said: “Please release all of my samples to Dr. Catalona at Northwestern University upon his request. I have entrusted these samples to Dr. Catalona to be used only at his direction and with his express consent for research purposes.” Within weeks, 6,000 patients signed and returned those forms. But Washington University denied their requests. The university, it turned out, had distributed samples to scientists for research that the patients didn’t know about.

“I just wanted to help Dr. Catalona cure prostate cancer,” one of his patients, Tom McGurk, told me when I met with him not long ago. “Now who knows what’s going on with that stuff?” He shook his head. “My DNA’s in those samples — that’s my kid’s and my grandkid’s DNA, too. Who’s looking at that stuff? What are they doing with it?” For another patient, Richard Ward, the implications are concrete. His cancer ranked 8 on a 10-point malignancy scale — if it comes back, his best chance for survival is treatment based on analysis of his tumor sample. He also worries about the genetics of the disease, which is hereditary. “Washington University is saying they own part of our bodies,” he told me. “They’re trying to preserve their financial interest over our lives and our kids’ lives. . .just thinking about that makes me crazy.”

Their consent forms said, “I have donated a tissue and/or blood sample for Doctor William Catalona’s research studies.” They didn’t mention giving them to Washington University. So when Washington University refused to transfer their samples, several patients asked that their tissues be removed from the collection, since their consent forms said they could withdraw from the research any time. The university refused; it read that provision of the consent form to mean that if asked, the university would take a person’s identifying information off the sample but keep using the tissue anonymously.

In August 2003, Washington University sued Catalona to establish ownership of the collection. The suit said Catalona had, among other things, “improperly accessed the university’s patient list” and asserted “an unsupported claim of personal ownership and/or control over” the samples. Catalona countered that neither he nor the university could own the samples, because they belonged to the patients. The judge asked for patient testimony. So Catalona began contacting his patients. And they did more than testify; several petitioned to join the lawsuit as intervenors — parties who, despite not being named in a lawsuit, voluntarily enter a suit to protect their interests.

Catalona cannot talk specifics about the case, but he has plenty to say about the issues involved. “The truth,” he told me, “is that the interests of patients and science often conflict with the interests of the university. And sometimes universities protect their interests to the detriment of the patients.” The only solution, he said, is disclosure: “If you’re honest with patients, and they understand what you’re doing, they’ll let you use their tissues — they want to advance science as much as we do. But they have to understand the deal going in.” The problem is, Catalona’s patients thought they knew the deal going in, but Washington University disagreed. Don Clayton, a university spokesman, said that if patients are able to “reclaim” or “redirect” their blood and tissues, biobanks will become “impossible to manage” and “so burdensome that scientists will be handcuffed.”

For Ellen Wright Clayton, from the Vanderbilt biomedical ethics center, this case comes down to defining the Common Rule in the way its authors intended. She took the stand as an expert witness to argue that though the Common Rule doesn’t specifically say patients can withdraw their tissues from research, that’s only because it was written before tissues were an issue. But given the spirit of the rule — protecting patients from becoming unwilling research participants — what else, she argued, could it mean? Anonymizing tissues and continuing to use them in research against the wishes of the patients, she said, “completely eviscerates the right to withdraw.” It also diminishes their usefulness to research and the patient’s future medical care.

The Catalona case is the first of its kind to make it to trial. (Other disagreements over tissue collections have surfaced, but they were settled.) Catalona’s patients have no intention of settling; they want to set a precedent. Theirs will be the first case to define a patient’s right to withdraw from tissue research (which may or may not give people the right to remove their samples from research at any time). It is also the first to question patients’ property rights in basic stored tissues. Unlike the Moore case, in which the ownership issue was complicated by the fact that Golde “transformed” Moore’s samples, the Catalona case is stark, because Washington University didn’t do anything innovative to those samples. It simply stored them. Which means Catalona is the first to deal with pure raw materials and the question of who owns them.

It has been a year since the Catalona hearing, and the judge still has not ruled. The losing side will probably appeal. The case could eventually reach the Supreme Court, but that could take a decade, maybe longer. This means that the world’s biggest prostate-cancer collection will be tied up in a lawsuit instead of advancing science, which infuriates the patients, Catalona and everyone else involved, including Lori Andrews, who advised the patients’ attorney. “Those patients donated tissues to facilitate research on prostate cancer,” she told me, “not to bring it to a halt because of questions about the university’s profits.”
There is one point that comes up again and again in discussions of Slavin and Moore and Catalona: like it or not, we live in a market-driven society, and science is part of that market. For Baruch Blumberg, the researcher who used Ted Slavin’s antibodies in his hepatitis B research, that is a reality that science is still learning to navigate.

During my visits to the Fox Chase Cancer Center to meet with O’Connell and learn about Slavin, I drove around Philadelphia with Blumberg, who is now 80. After decades of hepatitis B research, he needed a break from focusing on so much illness, suffering and death, and so he spent a few years working with NASA, studying the origin of life forms.

In the car one evening, I asked Blumberg what he thought about the debate over tissue ownership. Instead of answering, he told me how the technology for air bags came from medical devices designed by NASA. I asked again, and he pointed out Venus and Mars, which were bright and hovering above us. Finally, after my third try, he turned to me and sighed. “Whether you think the commercialization of medical research is good or bad depends on how into capitalism you are,” he said. On the whole, Blumberg said, commercialization is good — how else would we get the drugs and diagnostic tests we need? Still, he sees a downside. “I think it’s fair to say it’s interfered with science,” he told me, gazing up at the sky. “It’s changed the spirits.” Now there are patents and proprietary information where there was free information flow, he said.

“Researchers have become entrepreneurs,” he went on. “That’s really boomed our economy and created incentives to do research. But it’s also brought problems, like secrecy and arguments over who owns what.” He worries about similar changes in patients. “I had tremendous respect for Ted’s attitude,” Blumberg said, staring out the window. “He needed to make a living, so he took his blood, which had been his great disaster in life, and turned it into his fortune.” But Slavin didn’t get rich off his antibodies. “He donated much of them to science for free,” Blumberg said. “He didn’t have to do that.”

Slavin and Blumberg never used consent forms or ownership transfer agreements; Slavin just held up his arm and gave samples. “We lived in a different ethical and commercial age,” Blumberg said. He imagines patients might be less likely to donate now: “They probably want to maximize their commercial possibilities just like everyone else.” Blumberg is concerned about profits inhibiting science from either side of the scientific equation: researchers or patients.

All that important research he has done over the years — the hepatitis test and vaccine, discovering the link between the virus and cancer — it all depended on free and unlimited access to tissues. Blumberg says he doesn’t think keeping patients in the dark is the way to get that access, and he has a unique point of reference: Ted Slavin. “For somebody like Ted,” he told me, “who really needed that money to survive, it would have been wrong to say scientists could commercialize those antibodies but he couldn’t. You know, if someone was going to make money off his antibodies, why shouldn’t he have a say in that?”

Rebecca Skloot is the author of “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks,” about the history, ethics and ownership of the first human cell line, which will be published by Crown next year.

Editors’ Note

An article on Page 38 of The Times Magazine today about human tissue includes an outdated reference to a lawsuit between Washington University and Dr. William J. Catalona over ownership of samples that he collected while employed there. On Friday, after the magazine had gone to press, the presiding judge ruled that the university “owns all biological materials, including but not limited to blood, tissue and DNA samples” that it stores.

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer


Author of this blog, Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and our Children Who Want to Come Home, and Especially to My Little Julian, is not a lawyer, attorney, or legal practitioner, therefore, no information contained herein this post and/or blog could be (mis)construed as “legal advice.”  Anyone who exercises he/r rights, and private property sometimes called “child” for deceptive, possibly malicious or retaliatory, and profiteering/privateering and in the “best interests” . . . of the “state” Texas General and other Funds at one’s own peril, risk, and/ or self-fulfillment.  The choice is yours.

  • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.
  • (2) Content in this post is protected by Julian’s Real Mummy’s First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the uS Constitution and  Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal, uS Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights, under the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, and/or requirement/demand, then contact Author of this blog immediately as fair notice and due diligence requires so that Author shall act lawfully and reasonably with expedience pursuant to any supplemental knowledge.


Browse the “OKR”-

Open Knowledge Repository

julian worrell: legally kidnapped, unlawfully

My son, Julian, first from left (second grade)
My son, Julian, first from left (second grade), next to “Emmett Pratt”

“julian jacob worrell” of family, saloom

legally kidnapped, unlawfully


Last Seen with/by: Father, Matthew James Worrell; Nancy G. Worrell, Tomball, Texas (Harris County, Precinct 4 Constable on Cypresswood Drive in Spring, Texas); Diane M. Worrell, Houston, Texas (Harris County); complicit, John Kenneth Worrell; Brian and Carey Worrell (League City, Texas, Harris or Galveston County), on knowledge, belief, and strong “demonstrative” and circumstantial evidence with direct testimony



MISSING FROM HIS LOVING MOTHER, “joni faith saloom, “SINCE:  MAY 08, 2012

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer


Author of this blog, Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and our Children Who Want to Come Home, and Especially to My Little Julian, is not a lawyer, attorney, or legal practitioner, therefore, no information contained herein this post and/or blog could be (mis)construed as “legal advice.”  Anyone who exercises he/r rights, and private property sometimes called “child” for deceptive, possibly malicious or retaliatory, and profiteering/privateering and in the “best interests” . . . of the “state” Texas General and other Funds at one’s own peril, risk, and/ or self-fulfillment.  The choice is yours.

  • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.
  • (2) Content in this post is protected by Julian’s Real Mummy’s First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the uS Constitution and  Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal, uS Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights, under the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, and/or requirement/demand, then contact Author of this blog immediately as fair notice and due diligence requires so that Author shall act lawfully and reasonably with expedience pursuant to any supplemental knowledge.

Family CPS Courts, the “Final Solution”: Death by Temporary Order

Family (CPS) Courts “Final Solution”:

Death by Temporary Orders

medical knowledege that matters


“Modus vivendi is a Latin phrase signifying an agreement between those whose opinions differ, such that they agree to disagree.

Modus means mode, way (or method, manner). Vivendi means of living. Together, way of living, implies an accommodation between disputing parties to allow life to go on. It usually describes informal and temporary arrangements in political affairs. For example, where two sides reach a modus vivendi regarding disputed territories, despite political, historical or cultural incompatibilities, an accommodation of their respective differences is established for the sake of contingency. This sense of the term has been used as a keystone in the political philosophy of John Gray.

In diplomacy, a modus vivendi is an instrument for establishing an international accord of a temporary or provisional nature, intended to be replaced by a more substantial and thorough agreement, such as a treaty.[1] It is usually fashioned informally, and so never requires legislative ratification. Typically armistices and instruments of surrender are modus vivendi.”  

                                                                                                                    From Wikipedia, the “free” encyclopedia

For anyone who has the misfortune to have experienced what others may strategically refer to as “legal abuse”  via continuous harassing, fraudulent, and malicious CPS and police visits with the goal of kidnapping your only property sometimes called “child” by the “State” for, inter alia, federal funding and grant steering R.I.C.O. court cons, incrementally, to later ratify permanently “sealed,” secret deals that sometimes involve $20,000-$30,000 flat fee judicial campaign contributions such, before or after one has been been dragged into family “civil”/ “CPS Cluster Courts East Texas” on the well-known groundless, statutorily required fraudulent and false allegations–sworn– phenomenon termed in Texas, the emergency “ex parte motion” for “ex parte emergency temporary restraining order (‘TRO’) and emergency “order” to “modify” any “suit affecting the parent child relationship,” in many unnecessarily “high conflict” narcissistic grabs for power and control involve wealthy fathers and families and the militant groups which fuel their fire–BAR members–call-in “secret” favors for life-crippling , case sabotaging, peculiarly prescient “DIRTY ASSAULTS,” or “DIRTY DWI/DUI’S,” which shall or may always be extended by statute as a matter of routine protocol whether accusations be groundless or not and without a single shred of “articulable” evidence required pursuant to any and all definitions of due process of law and equal protections of the law beyond the fourteen (14)  days to indefinite ‘no-contact’ orders that constitute an unlawful, but illegal, u.S. unconstitutional presumption that one is never “allowed” “access or ‘visitation'” with one’s private property-“children”–until one can bribe his or he/r “one child, one judge-for-life ‘collaborative’ law associate judge.”  Before the temporary restraining order, however, the Nazi death panel that has has already been executed without a lawful judge’s CPS supervisor’s (as their offices are right in the courts, Child Protective Services’) autograph and entered into a secret “child abuse or neglect” national, state, local, and inter-agency/international and National Centers for Missing and Exploited Children, all “ABC”-agency and Department of Highway and Transportation and Safety databases–the “digital plantation”– for “ongoing ‘investigations'” of the non-child or child sexual abuser who, in eighty to ninety percent of these cases according to research by the National Leadership Council and the Arizona Coalition’s Project, become the “sole ‘managing’ ‘conservator'” to the product of your womb, making you a non-consenting retroactive slave via surrogate motherhood–absent “due compensation” pursuant to the Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the Federal, u.S. Constitution and its “incorporated” Bill of Rights ratifies and applies directly to the people through the Fourteenth Amendment  (Amendment XIV)(former “Thirteenth” Amendment, and researched or conned, anyway) to the u.S Constitution.

 “Termination of parental rights” is engineered even through regular jury panels that the judge in family “civil” court has pre-selected, at least, this is the case in Texas.  This is common and widely accepted–through experience and utter Orwellian nightmares of so many families, targeted single and young mothers even if their “social-economic security” for the “state” is and has been stable, many times, in fact, successful and without any intervention of imaginary “child ‘welfare” that is non-existent in Texas and many states, anyway, through TANF waivers (“Temporary Assistance to ‘Needy Families'”) (see Federal Personal Responsibility and Right to Work Act” signed or autographed in 1996) by the states who “opt-out,” and always have where the money is diverted to pro-father’s rights attorneys who serve only millionaire, clinically psychopathic “responsible” criminal fathers–but never mothers as a policy and see Texas Attorney General website and Office of Support Enforcement/”Crime Victim’s Assistance Fund”/”gatekeeping” monopoly on the “TEXAS GENERAL FUND CHILD SURPLUS REPORT”-enforcing joint public-private venture agency for “economic and social security” of the military enclave or zone (martial/marital law in times of crisis or “domestic emergency”) with ready-made wives pre-selected for the same “healthy marriage initiative” grant to adopt–a stranger’s “child.”

These “orders” are completely unlawful and void ab initio–null and void as a matter of fact and law before one even “appears” due to implicit and explicit fraud upon the court and total lack of any and all due process of law, both procedural and substantive pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (Amendments V, XIV) to the Federal, u.S. Constitution and its “incorporated” Bill of Rights ratifies and applies directly to the people, being individuals, through the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal, u.S. Constitution.

Below, others, properly cited, without regard to their revealing support and design of and for the same evil crimes of hate and racism–demographic research and Eugenics, or, racial and ethnic cleansing–social Darwinism–chronicle the pernicious past and modern roots, the reason that the family/CPS Tuesday docket  and “CPS Cluster Courts East Texas”/juvenile dependency courts were initiated and formed for the same common goal referred to by Adolf Hitler and the SS as “the Final Solution.”

Children’s Aid Societies and “pauper’s courts” (for the poor and those who “can’t help themselves” in society) were the precursors to the modern family CPS “health and human services” professional services corporations or joint public-private county and “state” courts of inferior jurisdiction–don’t let the state code–statutes such as Texas Family Code, but not necessarily u.S. Constitutionally compliant, superior, and natural God-given and implied law (see the Ninth Amendment to the Federal, u.S. Constitution and its “incorporate” Bill of Rights ratifies and applies directly to the people through the Fourteenth Amendment (some may refer to it as the original Thirteenth Amendment) to the Federal, u.S. Constitution, fool into buying  into their unilateral “general” jurisdiction.  After all, this is just another example of semantic art and deception–paradox– ” _ _ _ _ _ _ _ reversal.”

Even more frightening to author of this blog–“julian’s Real mummy,” Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and our Children who Want to Come Home, and especially to my little julian–is that there are now mandatory genetic counselors on staff or for on-call referral at hospitals, and especially for young mothers or mothers with no other private property the “state” prefers to call “child”/”MINOR”/”ward of the court”/presumed “mentally incompetent” or “high conflict”/ “high risk”/ “helicopter moms”/”protective mothers”/”vigilant” moms/”PTSD Mommies”/”controlling”–“maltreating”–“alcoholic,” “drug-addicted,” “abusive or neglectful” parent property owners/”senior citizens” or “Alzheimers” and dementia candidates deemed “threats” to the public health, welfare, and “national security”  for racketeering and organized crime purposes.

“Voluntary euthanasia,”  “troubled teen” facilities, “pre-determined outcomes” or “trauma-informed, ‘evidence-based’ research” (CPS and Texas Public “Policy Priorities”)– forward-looking surgical and medical “accidents”/”complications,” and even involuntary abortions and involuntary–forced–adoptions “donate” daily for research funded genetic grant studies (with no information, no knowledge, no sufficient knowledge, no “due compensation” for confiscating private property for public use, and without “‘voluntary’ ‘consent'” or procedural/efficient/administrative/collaborative law/unified courts due process of law–substantive, meaningful due process, but not “processing,” as at an “in-take/in-tank” facility or institution.  Historically, certain (test population) vaccinations and public transport were also mandatory to enter scholastic aptitude labs, and also to and to measure I.Q. and physical education/gym class for “normal” bell curve comparative research and Nazi youth re-education encampments.

Hospital may derive from the Society of “hospitaliers,” or the Red Cross Society–Knights of the Red Cross.  It is difficult to know whether or not there were more cases of swapped-babies, stolen babies, “Tubal ligation,” involuntary, non-informed, non-consented “miscarriages,” and, without due compensation, tissue samples and “complications in surgery” for “charitable” organ “donation” in the past or in the present or future.  Clearly, forced adoptions with “‘voluntary’ consent” have been public policy priorities in states like Texas for the past quarter of a decade.  Author queries when we shall finally get to know which test or control group we have been a part of . . .in the future present. ? ? ?  When may [ or may not] do we find out what is really happening with [ or without ]our “voluntary consent?”

Seemingly harmless polls and surveys have also been commonly conducted for other purposes or public policy/policing/profiling priorities.

The authors and researchers cited and their work “summarized,” below:





In democratic societies, the needs of public health sometimes require citizens to make sacrifices for the greater good, but in Nazi Germany, national or public health — Volksgesundheit — took complete precedence over individual health care. Physicians and medically trained academics, many of whom were proponents of “racial hygiene,” or eugenics, legitimized and helped to implement Nazi policies aiming to “cleanse” German society of people viewed as biologic threats to the nation’s health. Racial-hygiene measures began with the mass sterilization of the “genetically diseased” and ended with the near-annihilation of European Jewry. The concept of racial hygiene had deep roots in Germany.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, growing numbers of medical and public health professionals decried Germany’s declining birth rate and the perceived biologic “degeneration” of the nation and proposed reforms to improve the quantity and quality of the population.

Rapid industrialization and urbanization had created overcrowded cities, with attendant conditions of extensive poverty and crime; the spread of tuberculosis, syphilis, gonorrhea, and other contagious diseases; and expanding numbers of persons identified by psychiatrists as mentally ill or retarded, who required special care.

These changes coincided with a blossoming of medical research and the establishment of dozens of new institutes and laboratories. Breakthroughs in bacteriology and the emerging field of genetics — the publication of August Weismann’s theory of immutable germ-plasm in the 1890s and the “rediscovery” of Gregor Mendel’s laws of heredity in 1900 — seemed to promise biologic or medical solutions to Germany’s problems. Physicians and medical researchers began to view themselves as the guides to a healthy, moral, industrious Germany.

1 The loss of nearly 2 million German men in World War I exacerbated fears about population and spurred new interest in genetics and eugenics as the path to salvation. Under the postwar Weimar Republic, two government-sponsored research institutes opened, one focusing on psychiatry, and the other on anthropology, human heredity, and eugenics. In the 1920s, many German medical students took courses in genetics that integrated the subject of racial hygiene.

Before 1933, eugenics proposals, such as the sterilization of mentally retarded and ill persons, failed to win wide support, but the Nazi “revolution,” beginning that year with Adolf Hitler’s assumption of power, upset the status quo. Political opposition to eugenics was swept aside, giving way to an unfettered, coercive, and racist Nazi variety. In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote that “the national state . . . must see to it that only the healthy beget children” using “modern medical means.” The Nazi drive to create a healthy German people was tied to ultranationalistic and militaristic goals: many more fit workers, farmers, and soldiers were needed for Germany to expand its territory and become a dominant world power.

Some physicians and biologists who supported eugenics had to accommodate themselves to Nazism’s rabid anti-Semitism.

But in return for accepting the persecution of Jews as a source of biologic degeneration, many in the medical community welcomed the new emphasis on biology and heredity, increased research funding, and new career opportunities — including openings created eugenics by the purge of Jews and leftists from the medical and public health fields.  In the Name of Public Health — Nazi Racial Hygiene Susan Bachrach, Ph.D. Figure

1. Conducting Twin Studies at the Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics in Berlin, February 1928. Geneticist Otmar von Verschuer examined hundreds of pairs of twins to study hereditary links to criminality, mental retardation, tuberculosis, and cancer.  

2 Senior, influential members of the first generation of racial hygienists collaborated with the Nazi regime.

Ernst Rüdin, director of the Munich psychiatric institute and internationally known for his work using genealogical data banks to study the prognosis of psychiatric illnesses, helped to draft the regime’s 1933 compulsory sterilization law.

Eugen Fischer, the medically trained director of the Berlin eugenics institute, and Otmar von Verschuer, a geneticist known for his research on twins (see Figure 1) and the mentor of Dr. Josef Mengele (who later became notorious for research on twins conducted at Auschwitz–Birkenau), served as medical judges on new Hereditary Health Courts.

They and hundreds of other medical and psychiatric specialists allowed the courts to present evidence supporting the state’s case for sterilization, such as family genealogies tracking purported inherited taints and intelligence tests containing educationbased questions.

By 1945, some 400,000 Germans had been forcibly sterilized. The highly elastic diagnosis of “feeblemindedness” provided legal grounds in most cases; the diagnosis of schizophrenia accounted for the second-largest group. Other illnesses covered under the 1933 law were manic–depressive disorder, genetic epilepsy, Huntington’s chorea, genetic blindness, genetic deafness, severe physical deformity, and chronic alcoholism.

Severing of the fallopian tubes was the typical method of sterilizing women, and vasectomy was the common procedure for men. As many as 5,000 persons died as a result of the surgery, most of them women.3 To build public support for this coercive program, posters, documentary films, and high-school biology textbooks (see Figure 2) argued the case for sterilization: “an easy surgical procedure, a humane means by which the nation can be protected from boundless misery.”

The propaganda campaign portrayed its targets as less than fully human. Although more strident in tone, its content mirrored health pamphlets, displays, and films produced during the 1920s in other countries where ideas about “race betterment” had spread, from Great Britain, the United States, Sweden, and Denmark to the Soviet Union, Brazil, and Japan. Proponents of eugenics in the early 20th century argued that modern medicine interfered with Darwinian natural selection by keeping the weak alive; that mentally “re _ _ _ _ _ _” and ill persons were reproducing at a much faster rate than valuable, productive persons; and that costs were escalating for maintaining “defectives” in special homes, hospitals, schools, and prisons.

4 In the United States, eugenicists helped to pass sterilization laws in many states, and before 1933, German racial hygienists cited this experience to buttress their own proposals for a sterilization law. Between 1907 and 1945, 40,000 eugenic sterilization operations were recorded in the United States, half of them in California, where patients in state mental hospitals were the main targets. Sterilization laws were also introduced in the western Canadian provinces, certain Swiss cantons, and Scandinavia.

But nowhere did the number of sterilizations approach that in Germany. The Nazi sterilization effort was integrated into Figure 2. “You Also Bear the Burden!” A Nazi-era high-school biology book warns that “a hereditarily ill person costs 50,000 reichsmarks on average up to the age of sixty.” From the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, D.C. In the Name of Public Health — Nazi Racial Hygiene Copyright © 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved. n engl j med 351;5 july 29, 2004 419


a comprehensive program of racial hygiene. Other key elements included the banning of marriages between “hereditarily healthy” Germans and persons deemed genetically unfit or infected with tuberculosis or venereal diseases and between Jews and non-Jews. Propaganda posters announcing the new crime of “racial defilement” portrayed Jews as black, and German officials often mentioned U.S. antimiscegenation laws in defense of their own discriminatory legislation.

To enforce its racialhygiene measures, the Hitler regime established hundreds of “hereditary and racial care clinics” that examined people’s family histories. Staffed by thousands of physicians and assistant physicians, the clinics operated under the aegis of regional public health offices and created vast hereditary data banks for the regime’s future use. Echoing old fears about the declining German birth rate, officials also implemented “positive” eugenic measures, promoting large (“child-rich”) families for the Aryan fit, setting aside houses in new subdivisions for eugenically qualified families, and issuing the Honor Cross of German Motherhood to healthy, “German-blooded” women who had at least four children (see Figure 3).

Public health campaigns advised pregnant women to eschew alcohol and nicotine and other “genetic poisons” that were harmful to the fetus.

After German forces invaded Poland in 1939, Nazi racial hygiene took a radical turn, from controlling reproduction and marriage to the mass murder of persons regarded as biologic threats. Between 1939 and 1945, an estimated 200,000 Germans — ranging from infants born with Down’s syndrome and other birth defects to elderly psychiatric patients judged to be “incurably ill” — were killed in “euthanasia” programs.

Lethal doses of drugs, starvation, and gassing were the methods of killing, administered by physicians and nurses.5 The use of gas chambers disguised as showers provided the model for the mass murder of Jews, which began in 1942 at the Nazi camps in Poland.6 The war, and the lowering of moral barriers in a time of conflict and chaos, provided the opportunity to enlist medical professionals in conducting these murderous programs in the name of the regeneration of the Fatherland.

In 1946 and 1947, the American military tribunal at Nuremberg tried 20 German physicians and 3 lay accomplices for medical experiments using prisoners of Nazi concentration camps. But most of the German scientists and physicians who had helped to legitimize and implement Nazi racialhygiene policies were not prosecuted or called to a moral accounting of any kind, and many went on with their careers. Verschuer, for example, established one of West Germany’s largest genetic research centers.

The neuropathologist Julius Hallervorden, who had used the children’s euthanasia program as an opportunity to amass new specimens for study, resumed his brain research.

Globally, the Holocaust helped to discredit eugenics, and the term itself became taboo in the scientific community. Even so, the sterilization of mentally retarded and ill persons continued in some parts of Scandinavia and Canada after the war, and sterilization remained part of social policy in Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia into the 1970s. Figure 3. Bronze Honor Cross of German Motherhood.

The Nazi regime awarded bronze medals to “fit” Germanic women who had four or five children, silver medals to those who had six or seven, and gold medals to those with eight or more. From the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, D.C. In the Name of Public Health —

Nazi Racial Hygiene  Massachusetts Medical Society, 420 n engl j med 351;5july 29, 2004

Copyright © 2004

All rights reserved.


Over the past six decades, the science of human heredity has advanced greatly, from knowledge of the operation of DNA to the mapping of the human genome. Such progress holds great promise for medical advances but also inspires new, utopian visions of perfecting humankind. The history of Nazi racial-hygiene policies and eugenics reminds us of the importance of maintaining democratic checks and balances in the application of biomedical research and of always guarding against the use of genetics for the purpose of discriminating against persons or groups.

From the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, D.C., where a special exhibition, “Deadly Medicine: Creating the Master Race,” will be open through October 16, 2005. The exhibition examines the critical role German physicians, public health officials, and academic experts played in supporting and implementing the Nazis’ program of racial eugenics, which culminated in the Holocaust.

1. Weindling P. Health, race, and German politics between national unification and Nazism, 1870-1945. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1989:1-10.

2. Proctor R. Racial hygiene: medicine under the Nazis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988.

3. Bock G. Nazi sterilization and reproductive policies. In: Kuntz D, Bachrach S, eds. Deadly medicine: creating the master race. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004:61- 87.

4. Kevles DJ. In the name of eugenics: genetics and the uses of human heredity. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985.

5. Burleigh M. Death and deliverance: euthanasia in Germany c.1900-1945. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

6. Friedlander H. The origins of Nazi genocide: from euthanasia to the final solution. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995.





Eugenics is an old word and an old idea, but because of its historical role it demands attention in this Symposium issue on legal and cultural responses to disability.

Francis Galton’s formal definition of eugenics in 1883 created a field that would study and advocate for “well-born” children, emphasize heredity, and exert a powerful impact on social policies.

1 Lawmakers were seduced by the idea that people are marked with the genetic residue of their ancestors.

Government, they said, could sort the fit and the unfit and decide which citizens are worthy to have children.

But history shows that instead of improving society, eugenics merely provided a cover for abusing the poor and the disabled.

Many eugenicists shared a fear of people with mental disabilities and a desire to rid the world of them.

As Henry Goddard proposed in 1927, “[p]erhaps our ideal should be to eventually eliminate all the lower grades of intelligence and have no one who is not above the twelve-year old intelligence level.”

2 This article should serve as a reminder that the eugenics movement was rightfully notorious for its pointed stigmatization of people with disabilities—particularly those with mental disorders. One of the key focal points of eugenic contempt was the ill-defined trait of “feeblemindedness.”

3 According to Massachusetts physician Walter Fernald, those defined as feebleminded endured “all degrees and types of * Paul A. Lombardo, Ph.D., J.D., is a Professor of Law at the Georgia State University College of Law in Atlanta, Georgia.


2. Henry H. Goddard, Who Is A Moron?, 24 SCIENTIFIC MONTHLY 41, 45 (1927); see also HENRY HERBERT GODDARD, FEEBLE-MINDEDNESS: ITS CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES 573-74 (1914) (arguing that people with lower intelligence should be placed in a special environment separate from the rest of society).

3. Walter E. Fernald, The History of the Treatment of the Feeble-Minded, in PROCEEDINGS OF THE NAT’L CONFERENCE OF CHARITIES AND CORRECTION 203, 211-13 (Isabel C. Barrows ed., 1893).SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 58 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW & POLICY [Vol. 2:57 congenital defect.

4 The feebleminded ranged from “the simply backward boy or girl . . . to the profound idiot, a help-less, speechless, disgusting burden, . . . “.

5 Or as Charles Davenport, the dean of American eugenics, said, “[o]ne may even view with satisfaction the high death rate in an institution for low grade feeble-minded.”

6 Feeblemindedness was also linked to feeble inhibitions,7 and every manner of disability, from a man’s premature decline caused by syphilis, to his son’s blindness and his daughter’s withered limb.

These conditions were bundled as if all of a piece—results of immoral living, evidence of an intergenerational curse that cascaded through families from parents to children as part of an hereditary legacy.

The feebleminded were regularly described by eugenicists as a menace to society, considered to include the “great mass of defectiveness” in institutions, and marked for genetic prophylaxis though the process of sterilization.

8 The dark history of eugenics makes it tempting, in our hurry to distance ourselves from its shadow, to couple the word “eugenics” exclusively with attitudes that most of us would find unacceptable today.

But I will argue instead that we should be careful how we invoke eugenic history—and parsimonious in the way we use the very term “eugenics.” [???]

Some combatants in the ongoing “culture war” that pits the world views of people on different ends of the political spectrum against each other are attempting to manipulate and reshape our understanding of the history of eugenics and the word itself.

In this article I will show how that manipulation has developed in the press and within popular culture, and explore how the picture it fosters is at odds with the any accurate history of eugenics.

If we use the term solely as a rhetorical weapon within a political debate, we flirt with deceit and demagoguery, and run the risk of divorcing eugenics from the historical context in which it developed. When we intentionally debase history, we forfeit whatever opportunities there are for learning from it.

4. Id. at 213. 5. Id. 6. Charles B. Davenport, Presidential Address Before the Third International Congress of Eugenics, August 22, 1932, 17 EUGENICAL NEWS 89, 92.


8. H. H. Laughlin, Calculations on the Working Out of a Proposed Program of Sterilization, in PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON RACE BETTERMENT 478, 478 (1914). SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 2008] DISABILITY, EUGENICS, AND THE CULTURE WARS 59


What is the history of eugenics? Every account of the origins of the field starts with Francis Galton, who coined the term “eugenics” in 1883.

9 His science of the “well-born” would focus study on “ . . . all influences that tend in however remote a degree to give to the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable than they otherwise would have had.”

10 Galton’s ideas were eventually assimilated into a movement that also relied on the laws of heredity formulated in the 1860’s by Gregor Mendel.

11 Mendel’s discoveries remained an obscure episode in the history of science until after his death, and were only widely noticed after Mendel’s work was translated in the first decade of the 20th Century.

12 Galtonian eugenics flourished in England and focused on using statistical tools to quantify biological insights.

13 The field of biometrics grew out of Galton’s early work on statistics,

14 with further development by his disciple Karl Pearson.

15 In America, eugenics developed with more attention to Mendelian genetics, and this difference prompted sometimes raucous disagreements between the transatlantic eugenic camps.

16 When eugenics finally took root in America, the ideas that it was founded upon led to a national movement that had many diverse facets. There was what could be called the happy face of eugenics, shown to the public as “Better Baby Contests,” which claimed to identify particularly gifted tots and in some rare cases actually arrange a future marriage between them.

9. GALTON, supra note 1. 10. Id.

11. See generally GREGOR MENDEL, FUNDAMENTA GENETICA (Jaroslav Krizenecky ed. & trans., 1965). 12. DONALD PICKENS, EUGENICS AND THE PROGRESSIVES 46-48 (1968).

13. See DANIEL J. KEVLES, IN THE NAME OF EUGENICS: GENETICS AND THE USES OF HUMAN HEREDITY 37-40 (1985) (discussing the eugenics movement in England); see also NICHOLAS WRIGHT GILLHAM, A LIFE OF SIR FRANCIS GALTON: FROM AFRICAN EXPLORATION TO THE BIRTH OF EUGENICS 251 (2001) (explaining Galton’s use of statistics to determine whether “regression toward the mean applied in people as well as in sweet peas.”).

14. GILLHAM, supra, note 13, at 258 (noting that the science of biometrics grew out of Galton’s statistical analysis of heredity). ]

15. Id. at 263 (Karl Pearson’s formula, named Galton’s Law of Ancestral Heredity, was the result of Galton’s initial efforts in biometrics).

16. Hamish G. Spencer & Diane B. Paul, The Failure of a Scientific Critique: David Heron, Karl Pearson and Mendelian Eugenics, 31 BRIT. J. FOR HIST. SCI. 441, 441 (1998).

An extensive public debate between the biometricians and the Mendelians broke out in both the lay and scientific press.

See David Heron, English Expert Attacks American Eugenic Work, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 9, 1913, at SM2;

Charles B. Davenport, American Work Strongly Defended, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 9, 1913, at SM2;

Chas. B. Davenport, A Reply to Dr. Heron’s Strictures, 38 SCIENCE 773, 773-74 (1913);


David Heron, English Eugenics Expert Again Attacks Davenport, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 4, 1914, at SM14. SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 60 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW & POLICY [Vol. 2:57 

17 A later iteration of a similar contest sought “Fitter Families for Future Firesides.”

18 These contests eventually morphed into a vehicle of the official eugenics movement, as they were designed to identify the bearers of prized “germ plasm,” the eugenicists’ term for what is now known as DNA.

19 The darker, more negative side of eugenics has been explored extensively by historians, and as a result is more widely known.

20 The energies devoted to negative eugenics often found an expression in the law. There were, for example, immigration restrictions based on the supposed genetic superiority of some ethnic and racial groups and the inferiority of others,

21 and “racial integrity” laws to prevent interracial marriage.

22 We should also recall that taking care of disabled people was expensive, and the economic motive for many eugenic laws was never far from the surface—better breeding through tax cuts was a common eugenic mantra.

23 There was even a small group of supporters for eugenic euthanasia, who argued that “defective” newborns should simply be killed.

24 A powerful feature of eugenic ideology was contained in the mythologies of the so-called problem families—the Jukes and the Kallikaks—told via popular books to generations of school-age children and

17. Steven Selden, Transforming Better Babies into Fitter Families: Archival Resources and the History of the American Eugenics Movement, 1908–1930, 149 PROC. AM. PHIL. SOC’Y 199, 206-10 (2005) [hereinafter Selden, Transforming Better Babies into Fitter Families]; see also Editorial, Perfect Babies to Mate for Good of the Race, L.A. TIMES, Mar. 13, 1915, at 1.




KEVLES, supra note 13, at 46-48.

21. See, e.g., JOHN HIGHAM, STRANGERS IN THE LAND: PATTERNS OF AMERICAN NATIVISM, 1860-1925, at 97-116 (1955).

22. Paul A. Lombardo, Miscegenation, Eugenics, and Racism: Historical Footnotes to Loving v. Virginia, 21 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 421, 423 (1988) (hereinafter Lombardo, Miscegenation, Eugenics, and Racism).

23. See SELDEN, supra note 18, at 27 (noting that during a Fitter Families Contest, the advocates of eugenics circulated propaganda claiming that “every 11 seconds crime cost [sic] America $100,000. And of those who are committed to jail—one every 50 seconds—very few were found to be normal.”);

Scrutator, Breeding Better Folks Held Way to Lower Taxes, CHI. DAILY TRIB., Dec. 30, 1923, at A10; Harper Leech,Sees in Eugenics Way to Cut Cost of Government, CHI. DAILY TRIB., Sept. 14, 1926, at 24. 24.



61 college students as parables of the generational curse heredity could transmit in the form of criminality, poverty, mental defect, and general moral decay.

25 The Jukes and the Kallikaks were depicted as a lower species of humankind.

26 They were thought to be the products of hereditary degeneracy, and portrayed in scientific pedigrees that highlighted feeble-mindedness and sexual excesses.

27 Eugenic propagandists proclaimed that all such characteristics could be “bred out” of the population if marriages were eugenic. Marriage restriction laws were adopted to enforce this sentiment.

28 But the most popular vehicle for cleaning up the gene pool, and the one with the most widespread legal mandate in the United States, was eugenic sterilization.


We recently had an opportunity to reflect on the history of eugenics during the centennial of the first eugenical sterilization law in America.

29 Its strongest proponents were Dr. Harry Sharp, physician to the Indiana State Reformatory,

30 and his colleague, public health reformer John N. Hurty, a seven time secretary of the Indiana State Board of Health and one time President of the American Public Health Association.

31 Together they engineered the first eugenic sterilization law in America in 1907.

32 Dr. Sharp’s surgeries were controversial, and for twenty years during which about a dozen other states passed their own eugenic laws,33 a legal



NICOLE HAHN RAFTER, WHITE TRASH: THE EUGENIC FAMILY STUDIES, 1877-1919, at 1-2 (1988) (collecting several of the other early family stories).

26. See RAFTER, supra note 25, at 1.

27. Id.

28. Molly Ladd-Taylor, Eugenics, Sterilisation and Modern Marriage in the USA: The Strange Career of Paul Popenoe, 13 GENDER & HIST. 298, 301 (2001).

29. IND. CODE ANN. § 22-4-2232 (1908) (repealed 1974); see also Richard Feldman & Jeff Bennett, The Most Useful Citizen of Indiana: John Hurty and the Public Health Movement, TRACES OF INDIANA AND MIDWESTERN HISTORY, Summer 2000, at 34, 42.

30. See Feldman & Bennett, supra note 29, at 42.

31. Indiana Dep’t of Env’t Mgmt., John N. Hurty Award, at (last visited Feb. 3, 2009);

see Am. Pub. Health Ass’n, APHA Past Presidents, at (last visited Feb. 3, 2009);

see also Feldman & Bennett, supra note 29, at 42. 32. IND. CODE ANN. § 22-4-2232 (1908) (repealed 1974)

. 33. See HARRY HAMILTON LAUGHLIN, EUGENICAL STERILIZATION IN THE UNITED STATES ch.1, SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 62 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW & POLICY [Vol. 2:57 question hovered over sterilization: could eugenic surgery be a tool of constitutional statecraft?

That question was answered in 1927 in the case of Buck v. Bell, 34 which reminded us that 2007 was not only an anniversary year with reference to the pioneering Indiana legislation, but it seemed to echo as the last of a strange coincidence with years ending in seven.

Carrie Buck was the subject of a Supreme Court case that tested a Virginia sterilization law.

35 In Buck, the theory that poverty, disease, and unruly sexuality could be wiped out by state mandated surgery was applied to a young Virginia woman, whose family history was represented in court by the evidence captured in a pedigree showing hereditary moral degeneracy and illicit sex, as well as mental defect reappearing through three generations of her family.

36 What resulted was one of the most shameful Supreme Court opinions ever written.

Said Senior Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.: It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.

The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

37 As I have argued elsewhere, the real story of the Bucks was much more complex:

Carrie herself had been raped, her daughter Vivian was perfectly normal, and the case itself was a fraud.

38 Nevertheless, in 32 states, there were more than 65,000 surgeries in the U.S. alone from 1907 until at least 1979.

39 It took ten years after Buck before the nation’s last sterilization law was passed in the state of Georgia in 1937.

40 Agitation for a sterilization law in Georgia, like in many states, revolved around the cost of supporting institutionalized populations.

41 Sterilization was sold in Georgia as it had at 15-31 (1922) (summarizing sterilization laws enacted prior to 1922 in Indiana, Washington, California, Connecticut, Nevada, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Michigan, Kansas, and Wisconsin).

34. Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927).

35. Id.; see 1924 Va. Acts 569 (repealed by Act of Apr. 2, 1974, ch. 296).

36. HARRY H. LAUGHLIN, THE LEGAL STATUS OF EUGENICAL STERILIZATION 18 (1930) (chart showing the history of feeblemindedness in Buck’s family).

37. Buck, 274 U.S. at 207 (citations omitted).


39. See id. at 294 app. c (Laws and Sterilizations by State). 40. 1937 Ga. Laws 414 (repealed 1970).

41. See, e.g., ANNE MOORE, THE FEEBLE MINDED IN NEW YORK: A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE PUB. EDUC. ASS’N OF NEW YORK 86 (1911) (“To support a feeble-minded person in one of the state institutions costs the state, on the average, $161.20 a year.”). SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 2008] DISABILITY, EUGENICS, AND THE CULTURE WARS

63 been in other states, as a prudent part of state budget management and a step on the road to lower taxes.

42 In the depths of the Great Depression, civic leaders pressed for a medical solution that would rid the state of people deemed “generally defective in any way.”

43 In 1934 the Chairman of the State Board of Control for Charitable Institutions announced a twenty-five percent reduction in the budget appropriation—based on reduced state revenues—and maintained that “insanity and mental deficiency appear to be rapidly increasing.”

44 His remedy for this rapid increase in insanity was sterilization.

45 Supporters of sterilization applauded the Nazis, whose own eugenic policy was already in operation.

46 They judged Hitler’s project as “a step in the right direction.”

47 The proposed Georgia law targeted anyone with a “physical, mental, or nervous disease or deficiency” who might have children with similar problems, and created a state board of eugenics that directed superintendents of state asylums to name candidates for sterilization surgery.

48 Chain gang wardens could also recommend cases.

49 When Georgia’s law passed through the legislature, the press declared that sterilization appealed to “the common sense and reason of the people.”

50 The bill was vetoed by the Georgia governor, but it reappeared, was again passed in the legislature, and was signed by a new governor following the 1937 legislative session.

51 Some 3,300 Georgians endured surgery under this law until its repeal in 1974.

52 Between Indiana’s 1907 sterilization statute and Georgia’s 1937 act, thirty other states adopted laws that would 42. See Lindsey Urges Sterilization as Insanity Ban, ATLANTA CONST., Mar. 29, 1934, at 1A [hereinafter Lindsey].

43. Atlanta Doctors to Drive for Sterilization Bill, ATLANTA CONST., Feb. 4, 1934, at 1A [hereinafter Atlanta Doctors]. 44. Lindsey, supra note 42. 45. Id.

46. The German sterilization law of 1933 resulted in approximately 400,000 sterilizations by 1945. Over 5,000 deaths resulted from the surgeries that were directed towards “feeblemindedness,” schizophrenia, genetic epilepsy, genetic blindness, and severe deformity, among others. Susan Bachrach, In the Name of Public Health—Nazi Racial Hygiene, 351 NEW ENG. J. MED. 417, 418 (2004).

47. Atlanta Doctors, supra note 43.

48. 1937 Ga. Laws 415 (repealed 1970); House Approves Sterilization Bill, ATLANTA CONST., Feb. 10, 1937, at 11.

49. House Approves Sterilization Bill, supra note

48; Edward Larson, Belated Progress: The Enactment of Eugenic Legislation in Georgia, J. HIST. OF MED. & ALLIED SCI. 44, 54-59 (1991) [hereinafter Belated Progress].

50. Sterilization Bill Passes the House, ATLANTA CONST, March 9, 1935; Belated Progress, supra note 49, at 59-63.

51. Edward J. Larson, Breeding Better Georgians, 1 GA. J. S. LEGAL HIST.53, 66-70 (1991).

52. Belated Progress, supra note 49, at 44. SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 64 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW & POLICY [Vol. 2:57 eventually lead to surgery for more than 65,000 people.

53 Different states chose to eliminate childbirth in different kinds of people. Some named the “crippled, blind, degenerate, and deficient,”

54 while others picked “paupers and the criminalistic.”

55 But in all states those most likely to be sterilized were poor people living in state institutions.56 From the end of World War II until the law was repealed in 1970, more operations were performed in Georgia than any state except North Carolina.

57 Even though the law was in force for fewer years than any other state, the 3,300 operations made Georgia fifth in the U.S. in the number of eugenic surgeries.

58 The economic motive for sterilization also resonated in other countries. As one of the first acts of the new Nazi government, Germans adopted an expansive sterilization law that went into effect in 1933.

59 Propaganda in Germany focused on the lifelong costs of supporting any “genetically ill” person.”

60 The German law eventually provided the legal justification for over 400,000 sterilizations.61 In 1946, the Nuremburg war trials were convened.62 While prosecutors at Nuremberg were hesitant to condemn German sterilizations that occurred under the rubric of domestic law, they

53. LOMBARDO, supra note 38, at 294 app. c (Laws and Sterilizations by State).

54. See, e.g., 1921 Wash. Sess. Laws 162 (statute targeting the “feeble minded, insane, epileptic, habitual criminals, moral degenerates, and sexual perverts….”); 1913 N.D. Laws 63 (where the statute targets “[c]onfirmed criminals, [i]nsane, [i]diots, [d]efectives and [r]apists”). 55. See e.g., 1917 S.D. Sess. Laws 378 (where the law focuses on the “[i]diot, [i]mbeciles and [f]eeble-[m]inded persons. . . . ”).

56. Alexandra Minna Stern, Sterilized in the Name of Public Health, 95 AM. J. PUB. HEALTH 1128, 1131-32 (2005) (explaining that most of those sterilized in California were “either working class or lower middle class.”).

57. S. Res. 247, 149th Gen. Assemb. (Ga. 2007); see also LOMBARDO, supra note 38 at 294 app. c (Laws and Sterilizations by State).

58. LOMBARDO, supra note 38 at 294 app. c (Laws and Sterilizations by State). Another Georgia eugenic law involved race. See 1927 Ga. Laws 272.

In 1927, the language of “racial integrity” was borrowed from states with laws that prohibited interracial marriage. See Comment, Intermarriage with Negroes. A Survey of State Statutes, 36 YALE L.J. 858, 858-60, 862-63 (1927) (discussing state laws prohibiting intermarriage between Caucasians and African-Americans, current in twenty-nine of the states in 1927); Lombardo, Miscegenation, Eugenics, and Racism, supra note 22, at 423.

Under the pretense that it was acting with scientific precision, the state tried to define the purity of a white bloodline, marking “negroes, mulattoes, mestizos,” and those with “African, West Indian, or Asiatic Indian blood in their veins” as unfit. 1927 Ga. Laws 272 (“An Act to define who are persons of color and who are white persons, to prohibit and prevent the intermarriage of such persons[.]”).

59. See ROBERT J. LIFTON, THE NAZI DOCTORS 23-27 (2000) (1986).


61. Bachrach, supra note 46, at 418.


did choose to pursue concentration camp doctors and others for performing sterilizations on camp prisoners.63 Those procedures were often done using experimental means, such as caustic chemicals or radiation, and were condemned as torture that occurred under the guise of medical research.64 Thus, a full four decades after the 1907 “Indiana Experiment,”

65 the international community condemned experimental sterilization as a war crime.


In 2002, in an attempt to highlight one of the more notorious episodes of eugenic history that has special significance for disability advocates, a marker was erected to commemorate the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Buck case in Carrie Buck’s hometown of Charlottesville, Virginia.

67 In 2007, scholars gathered with public officials in Indianapolis, Indiana to put up a second marker as a permanent remembrance of the one hundred year old Indiana sterilization law.

68 After a public symposium that explored the history of eugenics,69 the marker was unveiled by Linda Sparkman, who had herself been a litigant in a Supreme Court case that challenged the judge who ordered her sterilization.

70 The Indiana marker now sits outside of the

63. See PROCTOR, supra note 60, at 117.

64. See TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS, supra note 62, at 37, 48-50.

65. See R. Newton Crane, Experiments in Eugenics by American State Legislatures, 10 J. SOC’Y COMP. LEGIS. 120, 122 (1909).

66. See generally TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS supra note 62, at 37.

67. Paul A. Lombardo, Taking Eugenics Seriously: Three Generations of ??? are Enough?, 30 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 191, 199-201, & n.56 (2003) (hereinafter Lombardo, Taking Eugenics Seriously).

68. 1907 Ind. Acts 377; see also Indiana Historical Bureau, 1907 Indiana Eugenics Law, at (last visited Feb. 3, 2009).

69. See Indiana Eugenics: History and Legacy, 100th Anniversary Symposium (Apr. 12, 2007), at (last visited Feb. 3, 2009) (symposium schedule); Press Release, Indiana University School of Medicine, Symposium and Exhibit Recognize 100 Year Anniversary of Indiana Eugenics Legislation: Hoosier State Led World in Enactment of Involuntary Sterilization Laws (Feb. 28, 2007), at news_releases/viewRelease.php4?art=646 (last visited Feb. 3, 2009). 70. See generally Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978); Shari Rudavsky, Looking at the History of Eugenics in Indiana, INDIANAPOLIS STAR, Apr. 13, 2007, at Metro & State 1. SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 66 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW & POLICY [Vol. 2:57 state capitol, where a resolution denouncing eugenics was passed, based on the Virginia model.71

71. The text of the Indiana resolution read: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION to mark the centennial of Indiana’s 1907 eugenical sterilization law and to express the regret of the Senate and House of Representatives of the 115th Indiana General Assembly for Indiana’s experience with eugenics.

Whereas, On April 27, 1907, Indiana enacted our nation’s first eugenical sterilization law, which mandated the sterilization of persons who were physically or developmentally disabled, mentally ill, or who had committed crimes;

Whereas, The goal of the now-discredited eugenics movement was to provide a simple solution to the complex issues of physical disorders, mental illness, developmental disabilities, and changing social conditions by eliminating what the movement’s supporters considered to be hereditary flaws through selective reproduction;

Whereas, In the 1921 case of Smith v. Williams, the Indiana Supreme Court declared the state’s 1907 law unconstitutional;

Whereas, In a landmark 1927 decision, the United States Supreme Court upheld Virginia’s involuntary sterilization statute in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes;

Whereas, Following the U.S. Supreme Court precedent, Indiana enacted a new sterilization law in 1927 authorizing the compulsory sterilization of persons living in a state institution;

Whereas, Indiana involuntarily sterilized some 2,500 people, while more than 65,000 people were sterilized under similar laws in 30 other states during the same period;

Whereas, Eugenics legislation devalued the sanctity of human life, placed claims of scientific benefit over human dignity, and denied the inalienable rights recognized by our Founding Fathers;

Whereas, Eugenics legislation targeted the most vulnerable among us, including the poor and racial minorities, wrongly dehumanizing them under the authority of law and for the claimed purpose of public health and the good of the people;

Whereas, In the past five years, several other states, including Virginia, Oregon, North Carolina, and California, have publicly repudiated their involvement in the eugenics movement; and Whereas, 2007 marks the centennial of Indiana’s eugenical sterilization law, the first such law in the United States:

Therefore, Be it resolved by the Senate of the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, the House of Representatives concurring:

SECTION 1. That the Indiana General Assembly hereby expresses its regret over Indiana’s role in the eugenics movement in this country and the injustices done under eugenic laws.

SECTION 2. That the General Assembly urges the citizens of Indiana to become familiar with the history of the eugenics movement in the belief that a more educated and enlightened population will repudiate the many laws passed in the name of eugenics and reject any such laws in the future. S. Con. Res. 91, 115th Gen. Assemb., 1st Reg. Sess. (Ind. 2007) (enacted). SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 2008] DISABILITY, EUGENICS, AND THE CULTURE WARS

67 About the same time as the Indiana events were taking place, Georgia State Representative Mary Margaret Oliver introduced a resolution condemning her state’s involvement with eugenics.

72 Similarly, North and South Carolina had already officially repudiated eugenics.

73 Virginia, Oregon, and California had done so as well.

74 A legislative statement from Georgia would put the last state to pass a sterilization law on the record renouncing eugenics.75

72. See Mary Margaret Oliver, MMO Third Email Newsletter – 2007 General Assembly Session, Feb. 12, 2007, at (last visited Feb. 3, 2009);

see also Jeremy Redmon, Apology Asked for Sterilizations State Required, ATLANTA JOURNALCONST., Feb. 2, 2007, at 1A [hereinafter Redmon, Apology Asked for Sterilizations]; Jeremy Redmon, Legislature Considers Apology for State’s Role in Eugenics Movement, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONST., Feb. 1, 2007, at entries/2007/02/01/legislature_con.html (last visited Feb. 3, 2009) [hereinafter Redmon, Legislature Considers Apology].

73. See Kevin Begos et al., Easley Apologizes to Sterilization Victims, WINSTON-SALEM J., Dec. 13, 2002, at A1; Tim Smith, Hodges Offers Apology to Sterilization Victims, GREENVILLE NEWS, Jan. 9, 2003, at 2B.

74. See Paul A. Lombardo, Facing Carrie Buck, HASTINGS CTR. REP., Mar.-Apr. 2003, at 14, 16, 17 & nn.19-20; Lombardo, Taking Eugenics Seriously, supra note 67, at 200 & n.56 (quoting the text of Virginia Governor Mark Warner’s apology).

75. The text of the original eugenics apology introduced by Representative Oliver read:

A RESOLUTION Expressing profound regret for Georgia´s participation in the eugenics movement in the United States and marking the centennial of eugenic sterilization in the United States; and for other purposes.

WHEREAS, in the early 20th century, a pseudo-scientific movement called eugenics gained popularity in the United States and advocated the improvement of the human race by using selective breeding to eliminate supposed hereditary flaws such as mental disability and physical deformity; and

WHEREAS, in 1907, Indiana became the first state to enact a eugenics based sterilization law, mandating the sterilization of “confirmed criminals, idiots, rapists, and imbeciles”; and

WHEREAS, eventually more than 30 states enacted similar compulsory sterilization laws resulting in the involuntary sterilization of more than 65,000 individuals in the United States; and WHEREAS, the Supreme Court sanctioned the practice of compulsory sterilization in an infamous 1927 decision by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in which the court upheld Virginia´s sterilization of a young woman in a mental health facility on the grounds that “three generations of imbeciles [were] enough”; and

WHEREAS, in 1937, Georgia created a State Board of Eugenics and authorized the involuntary sterilization of Georgia´s patients in state mental health facilities, as well as Georgia inmates in state prisons and reformatories; and

WHEREAS, even though Georgia was the last state to enact a sterilization law, it performed the fifth largest number of sterilizations in the nation, sterilizing approximately 3,300 of its citizens between 1937 and 1970, the year the law was repealed; and The Atlanta Journal Constitution joined in the public education on eugenics with a series of articles surveying the history of eugenics in Georgia.SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 68 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW & POLICY [Vol. 2:57 

76 Cynthia Tucker, who won the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary, supported the legislative measure in one of her columns.

77 But the resolution hit a snag when partisan considerations surfaced.

78 Sharon Cooper, the Republican chair of the Georgia House of Representatives committee to which the resolution was referred, announced that she would not hold hearings nor take a vote on the eugenics measure, WHEREAS, more compulsory sterilizations were performed in Georgia between 1937 and 1970 than in any other state in the nation except North Carolina; and

WHEREAS, in addition to compulsory sterilization, Georgia and many other states enacted eugenics related legislation that attempted to preserve “racial integrity” by banning interracial marriage; and

WHEREAS, Georgia prohibited interracial marriages for 40 years, from 1927, when it enacted its antimiscegenation law, to 1967, when the Supreme Court invalidated all such laws in its landmark Loving v. Virginia decision; and

WHEREAS, eugenics legislation targeted the most vulnerable populations in the United States, including the disabled, the incarcerated, the poor, the members of racial and ethnic minorities, and all others viewed as “genetically unfit” and provided a false scientific rationale for discriminatory and racist practices; and

WHEREAS, despite the harm done to many thousands of Americans in the name of eugenics, the eugenics movement is largely forgotten today; and

WHEREAS, in the past five years, several other states, including Virginia, Oregon, North Carolina, and California, have publicly repudiated their involvement in the eugenics movement; and WHEREAS, the year 2007 marks the centennial of eugenic sterilization in the United States and the 70th anniversary of the passage of Georgia´s sterilization law.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES that the members of this body express their profound regret for Georgia´s participation in the eugenics movement and the injustices done under eugenics laws, including the involuntary sterilization of Georgia citizens.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the members of this body hereby support the full education of Georgia citizens about the eugenics movement in order to ensure that a more enlightened population repudiates the intolerance and bigotry that formed the basis of American eugenics laws and rejects similar laws in the future.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the House of Representatives is authorized and directed to transmit an appropriate copy of this resolution to the public and the press. H.R. Res. 122, 149th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ga. 2007).

76. See, e.g., Gayle White, The Horror of Forced Sterilization, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONST., Feb. 4, 2007, at Metro. 77. Cynthia Tucker, Editorial, Apology for Sterilizations Is Necessary, ATLANTA JOURNALCONST., Feb. 7, 2007, at 15A. 78. Redmon, Apology Asked for Sterilizations, supra note 72; Redmon, Legislature Considers Apology, supra note 72. SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 2008] DISABILITY, EUGENICS, AND THE CULTURE WARS

69 and that the measure would likely die in committee.

79 In fact, most bills authored by Democrats like Oliver stood a poor chance of making it through the Republican dominated legislature.

80 But before public discussion of the eugenics resolution had settled, Republican Senator David Shafer decided to join the campaign to highlight Georgia’s eugenic history.

81 His resolution repeated much of the same historical information that Oliver’s bill had contained, with two interesting differences.

82 First, Shafer eliminated any mention of the then eighty year old Georgia law that outlawed interracial marriage on eugenic grounds.

83 More surprising yet was the background information that Shafer chose to emphasize in his measure. He highlighted the origins of eugenic theory as an “outgrowth of Darwinian evolutionary theory” crafted by Darwin’s relative, Francis Galton.

84 The eugenicists crafted methods to eliminate unwanted people in future generations, Shafer claimed, including “selective breeding and birth control”.

85 Building on the Darwin/Galton link, Shafer then emphasized what he called “the application of Darwinian principles” as a hallmark of eugenic advocacy, and faulted “so-called ‘progressive’ academicians, scientists, politicians, and newspaper editors” for lending their endorsement to eugenic legislation.

86 Eugenic legislation was often

79. See Redmon, Apology Asked for Sterilizations, supra note 72; Redmon, Legislature Considers Apology, supra note 72. 80. See, e.g., Legislature 2007: Legislative Briefs, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONST., Feb. 7, 2007, at 4B; 149th General Assembly of the State of Georgia (showing that the legislature was sixty-one percent Republican).

81. Jeremy Redmon, Legislature 2007: Resolution ‘Regrets’ Role in Sterilization, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONST., Feb. 20, 2007, at 5B.

82. S. Res. 247, 149th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ga. 2007).

83. Compare H.R. Res. 122, 149th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ga. 2007)

(“WHEREAS, in addition to compulsory sterilization, Georgia and many other states enacted eugenics related legislation that attempted to preserve ‘racial integrity’ by banning interracial marriage; and

WHEREAS, Georgia prohibited interracial marriages for 40 years, from 1927, when it enacted its anti-miscegenation law, to 1967, when the Supreme Court invalidated all such laws in its landmark Loving v. Virginia decision”); with S. Res. 247, 149th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ga. 2007) (Shafer’s Resolution, which only discusses Georgia’s sterilization law).

84. S. Res. 247, 149th Gen. Assem., Reg. Sess. (Ga. 2007)

(“WHEREAS, the so-called science of eugenics emerged in the late 19th century as an outgrowth of Darwinian evolutionary theory, first advanced by anthropologist and geneticist Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin…”).

85. Id.

(“WHEREAS, in the early 20th century, this pseudo-scientific movement gained popularity in the United States and advocated the improvement of the human race by the application of Darwinian principles to eliminate supposed hereditary flaws such as mental disability and physical deformity and to alleviate human suffering through selective breeding and birth control . . . ”). 86. Id.

(“WHEREAS, in the early 20th century, this pseudo-scientific movement gained popularity in the United States and advocated the improvement of the human race by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 70 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW & POLICY [Vol. 2:57 adopted, Shafer noted, despite “religious objections that such matters ‘ought to be left to God’”.

87 Critics emerged to dispute Shafer’s concentration on Darwin as the fount of eugenic motives.88 Blaming eugenics almost entirely on Darwin seemed historically simplistic, and ignored the many ways that the eugenics movement became popular by borrowing from existing lines of thought, including nativism, racism, the temperance movement, the anti-prostitution movement, or even religious sentiment.

89 But Shafer’s language won the support of his colleagues in the Georgia Senate and was adopted in a 2007 resolution.

90 application of Darwinian principles to eliminate supposed hereditary flaws such as mental disability and physical deformity and to alleviate human suffering through selective breeding and birth control; and WHEREAS, eugenics was endorsed by so-called ‘progressive’ academicians, scientists, politicians, and newspaper editors, often over religious objections that such matters ‘ought to be left to God’…”).

87. Id. (“WHEREAS, eugenics was endorsed by so-called ‘progressive’ academicians, scientists, politicians, and newspaper editors, often over religious objections that such matters ‘ought to be left to God’…”).

88. See, e.g., Lee Raudonis, Editorial, Slavery Apology: Slap at Charles Darwin Goes Way Out on a Limb, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONST., Mar. 13, 2007, at 11A.

89. It was common, for example, for eugenicists to quote the Bible as a justification for eugenic laws, saying that the declaration from the Book of Exodus that the sins of the father are visited upon the children was a perfect summary of how bad heredity created generations of faulty families. See Exodus 34:6-7 (“[6]Thus the Lord passed before him and cried out, “The Lord, the Lord, a merciful and gracious God, slow to anger and rich in kindness and fidelity, [7] continuing his kindness for a thousand generations, and forgiving wickedness and crime and sin; yet not declaring the guilty guiltless, but punishing children and grandchildren to the third and fourth generation for their fathers’ wickedness!”).

According to Dennis L. Durst, Edith Smith Davis, Superintendent of The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) Scientific Temperance Department, declared: “[t]hat there is nothing new under the sun receives confirmation in the fact that the law of Moses is the law of Eugenics—that the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

Likewise the children shall have health and happiness whose parents have lived according to the law of life which is the law of God.” Dennis L. Durst, Evangelical Engagements with Eugenics, 1900- 1940, ETHICS & MEDICINE, Summer 2002, at 52 n.6 (quoting EDITH SMITH DAVIS, A COMPENDIUM OF TEMPERANCE TRUTH 116 (1916)).

90. Senator Shafer’s Eugenics Resolution, as passed by the Georgia Senate on Mar. 27, 2007:

A RESOLUTION Expressing profound regret for Georgia´s participation in the eugenics movement in the United States and marking the centennial of the first eugenic sterilization law in the United States; and for other purposes.

WHEREAS, the so-called science of eugenics emerged in the late 19th century as an outgrowth of Darwinian evolutionary theory, first advanced by anthropologist and geneticist Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin;


WHEREAS, in the early 20th century, this pseudo-scientific movement gained popularity in the United States and advocated the improvement of the human race by the application of Darwinian principles to eliminate supposed hereditary flaws such as mental disability and physical deformity and to alleviate human suffering through selective breeding and birth control; and

WHEREAS, eugenics was endorsed by so-called “progressive” academicians, scientists, politicians, and newspaper editors, often over religious objections that such matters “ought to be left to God”; and

WHEREAS, in 1907, Indiana became the first state to enact a eugenics based sterilization law, mandating the sterilization of “confirmed criminals, idiots, rapists, and imbeciles”; and

WHEREAS, eventually more than 30 states enacted similar compulsory sterilization laws, resulting in the forced sterilization of more than 65,000 individuals in the United States; and

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court sanctioned the practice of compulsory sterilization in the infamous 1927 decision by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in which the court upheld Virginia´s sterilization of a young woman in a mental health facility on the grounds that “three generations of imbeciles [were] enough”; and WHEREAS, with the editorial support of The Atlanta Constitution, the Georgia General Assembly passed a eugenics law in 1935, but that law was vetoed by Governor Eugene Talmadge; and

WHEREAS, in 1937, after Governor Talmadge had left office, Georgia enacted a new law creating the State Board of Eugenics and authorizing the compulsory sterilization of Georgia´s patients in state mental health facilities as well as Georgia inmates in state prisons and reformatories; and

WHEREAS, Georgia´s eugenics law remained on the books until 1970; and

WHEREAS, more compulsory sterilizations were performed in Georgia between 1937 and 1970 than in any other state in the nation except North Carolina; and

WHEREAS, eugenics legislation devalued the sanctity of human life, placed claimed scientific benefit over basic human dignity, and denied the God given rights recognized by our Founding Fathers; and

WHEREAS, eugenics legislation targeted the most vulnerable among us, including the poor and racial minorities, wrongly dehumanizing them under the color of law and for the claimed purposes of public health and good; and

WHEREAS, in the past five years, several other states, including Virginia, Oregon, North Carolina, and California, have publicly repudiated their involvement in the eugenics movement; and

WHEREAS, the year 2007 marks the centennial of the first eugenic sterilization in the United States and the 70th anniversary of the passage of Georgia´s sterilization law.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE that the members of this body express their profound regret for Georgia´s participation in the eugenics movement and the injustices done under eugenics laws, including the forced sterilization of Georgia citizens.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the members of this body hereby support the full education of Georgia citizens about the eugenics movement in order to foster a respect for the fundamental dignity of human life and the God given rights recognized by our Founding Fathers.

Senator Shafer’s focus on Darwin was not an isolated event. Close attention to internet commentary during this time revealed an interesting trend. One feature of that trend is represented by the writing of John G. West, former professor of political science and now Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle.

91 West’s book, Darwin Day in America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science, is an attempt to link proponents of the Darwinian theory of evolution with eugenics and many other modern ills, such as abortion.

92 West’s argument describes Darwin as the source of modernist “materialism,” which excludes the spiritual from the public sphere and pits evolution against “creation science” and theories of intelligent design.

93 West also credits early 20th Century Progressive movement with much that was wrong with eugenics.

94 West attacks the use of Darwinism as the wellspring of eugenics, and he regularly invokes the case of Buck v. Bell as a dramatic example of how the eugenics movement employed evolutionary theory to achieve horrific ends.

95 In early 2008, West discussed the Buck case during a lecture at the Washington, D.C. Family Research Council on Darwinian Fundamentalism.

96 He described the Buck case as an “example of Darwin’s theories applied destructively,” and repeated the sordid details of the case, including Carrie Buck’s early life in foster care, her mother’s institutionalization, her rape, and her subsequent diagnosis as “feeble-minded.”

97 One sympathetic reviewer summarized West’s presentation, noting how he offered “numerous illustrations of how

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the Senate is authorized and directed to transmit an appropriate copy of this resolution to the public and the media. S. Res. 247, 149th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ga. 2007);

for status history and information on voting, see SR 247 – Eugenics; Express Profound Regret for Georgia’s Participation, at (last visited Feb. 3, 2009). 91. See generally Darwin Day in America – About the Author, Biography of John West, at (last visited Feb. 3, 2009);

Discovery Institute, About Discovery, at (last visited Feb. 3, 2009); Center for Science and Culture, Top Questions, at (last visited Feb. 3, 2009).

92. See JOHN G. WEST, DARWIN DAY IN AMERICA: HOW OUR POLITICS AND CULTURE HAVE BEEN DEHUMANIZED IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE 128-33, 156-60 (2007). 93. Id. at xiv-xvii, 225-30, 234-38. 94. Id. at 123-26. 95. Id. at 137-39;

Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927).

96. 7John G. West, Darwin Day in America? Witherspoon Lecture at the Family Research Council (Feb. 12, 2008) [Hereinafter Darwin Day], webcast at 02/video_of_john_g_wests_lecture_1.html (last visited Jan. 16 2009).

97. West, Darwin Day, supra note 96; see also WEST, supra note 92, at 137-39 (describing the plight of Carrie Buck). SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 2008] DISABILITY, EUGENICS, AND THE CULTURE WARS 73

Darwinian advocates, such as former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., have taken Darwin’s theories and applied them over the years to situations they did not necessarily relate to.”

98 The recent Ben Stein documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a polemic on the purported exclusion of the so-called “intelligent design” perspective and other religious viewpoints from public debate, provided another vehicle for tying Darwin to the origins of eugenics.

99 Conservative activist and one-time Presidential candidate Gary Bauer100 noted that [t]he most compelling part of ‘Expelled’ is its investigation into the historical and intellectual link between Darwinism and the eugenics movement. Eugenics attempts to ‘assist’ evolution in order to move the human race forward into a new and improved world.

Central to social Darwinism are the ideas of natural selection and survival of the fittest, which eugenicists believe can be helped along by controlling birth patterns. Stein offers a striking reminder of where such utilitarian thinking can lead when he visits a death camp in Hadamar, Germany, where thousands of disabled people and other ‘undesirables’ or ‘useless eaters’ were exterminated during the Nazi regime.

101 Comments like Bauer’s typify a pattern of argument that relies on several simple declarations to link Darwin with everything evil.

First, it is said, Charles Darwin believed in a godless creation, and his theory of evolution is the foundation of an atheistic ideology.

102 Second, his likeminded cousin, Francis Galton, launched the eugenics movement from a Darwinian perspective. Third, others like Margaret Sanger supported eugenics and tried to force birth control onto the poor and disabled as a

98. Katherine Kipp, Author Critiques Darwin’s ‘Terrible Ideas’, FLORIDA BAPTIST WITNESS, Feb. 14, 2008, at (last visited Feb. 3, 2009).

99. EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED (Premise Media Corporation 2008).

100. Gary L. Bauer is the president of American Values. The American Values website describes the organization as ”a non-profit organization committed to uniting the American people around the vision of our Founding Fathers. . . . American Values serves to remind the public of the conservative principles that are so fundamental to the survival of our nation and to bring support and ideas to policy makers and empower our elected officials to have the support they need to do what is right, noble and good. . . .

American Values is deeply committed to defending life, traditional marriage and equipping our children with the values necessary to stand against liberal education and cultural forces.” American Values, About American Values, at (last visited Feb. 3, 2009). 101. Gary Bauer, Intelligence ‘Expelled’ from Evolution Debate, HUMAN EVENTS.COM, Feb. 18, 2008, at (last visited Feb. 3, 2009).

For a dramatically contrasting review of Expelled by movie critic Roger Ebert, see Win Ben Stein’s Mind, (Dec. 3, 2008, 12:25 CST). 102. See, e.g., WEST, supra note 92, at 37-41. SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 74 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW & POLICY [Vol. 2:57 way of carrying out eugenic aims. Finally, Hitler also believed in eugenics. Thus, the argument in a nutshell is that the ideas of Darwinian evolution led, via eugenics, to the Holocaust.

Moreover, a new eugenics movement has yielded a second Holocaust in the form of pro-abortion politics that are an outgrowth of Sanger’s eugenic propensities and other Progressive era trends that emphasize science over religion.

This attempt at a thesis is clearly based on a selective memory of the past and a distorted account of eugenic history. This brief essay does not permit a more extensive refutation of the line of argument I have described, but a few examples of what is absent from this account will suggest how deficient it is.

For example, the anti-Darwinians could have pointed out that the first six presidents of the twentieth century—Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover—all had taken positions supporting some kind of eugenic policy.

103 Coolidge signed a federal statute that remained in place for over forty years, limiting immigration of Jews and southern Europeans on eugenic grounds.

104 American laws limiting immigration on “racial” grounds were praised by Hitler in his book, Mein Kampf.

105 And Herbert Hoover was one of the most prominent supporters of the 1921 Second International Congress of Eugenics.

106 But whatever other shortcomings they may have had, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover are hardly responsible for the Holocaust.

107 103. See Paul A. Lombardo, Medicine, Eugenics, and the Supreme Court: From Coercive Sterilization to Reproductive Freedom, 13 J. CONTEMP. HEALTH L. & POL’Y 1, 1 & n.1 (1996);

see, e.g., THOMAS F. GOSSETT, RACE: THE HISTORY OF AN IDEA IN AMERICA 404-05 (1965) (discussing Harding’s 1920 campaign speech enunciating racial differences in the context of immigration restriction laws, and Coolidge’s popular 1921 article, when he was VicePresident, where he argued “that Nordics deteriorate when mixed with other races.”);

JAMES W. TRENT, JR., INVENTING THE FEEBLE MIND: A HISTORY OF MENTAL RETARDATION IN THE UNITED STATES 173 (1994) (discussing then New Jersey Governor Woodrow Wilson’s enthusiastic support of the legislature’s authorization of mandatory eugenic sterilization for “certain categories of adult feeble minds.”);

Lombardo, Taking Eugenics Seriously, supra note 67, at 208-09, n.114 (discussing an article written by Roosevelt embracing eugenics); CHASE, supra note 20, at 19-20 (discussing then Secretary of Commerce Hoover’s involvement with the Second International Congress of Eugenics, held in New York in 1921).

104. Immigration Act of 1924, ch. 190, 43 Stat. 153 (1924);

see CHASE, supra note 20, at 300-01.

105. Hitler railed against automatic citizenship for “every Jewish or Polish, African or Asiatic child” born in Germany as “thoughtless” and “hare-brained”. ADOLF HITLER, MEIN KAMPF 438-39 (Ralph Manheim trans., 1943) (1925).

America’s policy of “excluding certain races from naturalization” was a law that Hitler could endorse. Id. at 440.

106. CHASE, supra note 20, at 19-20 (discussing then Secretary of Commerce Hoover’s involvement with the Second International Congress of Eugenics, held in New York in 1921).

107. Charles Darwin’s son Leonard Darwin was on the sponsoring committee of the Second International Congress of Eugenics in New York City in 1921. See CHASE, supra note 

75 Theodore Roosevelt’s eugenic sentiments are well documented and he agreed with the leaders of the movement that “society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind.”

108 But there is no call among the anti-Darwinians for chiseling his face from Mount Rushmore.

Psychologists like Louis Terman, Robert Yerkes, and Leta Hollingworth argued for using the tools of psychometrics such as IQ tests to sort school students, and all three were well know as advocates of eugenics.

109 But the anti-Darwinians are not heard to argue that the mental testing movement was the gateway to the Holocaust.

110 What the anti-Darwinians didn’t say was that Herbert Spencer, not Darwin, coined the terms “survival of the fittest” and “Social Darwinism.”1

11 Nor did they note that the proponents of sterilization in the Buck case did not rely once on Darwin in their arguments in court, but repeatedly invoked the theories of heredity outlined first by Gregor Mendel, a Roman Catholic monk.

112. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., author of the Buck opinion, based his eugenic sentiments not on Darwin, but on the writings of Thomas 20, at 277.

The committee also included then secretary of commerce and later President Herbert Hoover, who presided over the stock market crash on “Black Monday” that ushered in the Depression. See id.

West, Bauer, and their colleagues might have said that these associations prove that Darwin was responsible for the Great Depression, but that would have been similarly inaccurate.

108. Letter from Theodore Roosevelt to Charles Davenport (Jan. 3, 1913), at (last visited Feb. 3, 2009).


Robert M. Yerkes, A Point Scale for Measuring Mental Ability, 1 PROC. NAT’L ACAD. SCI. 114 (1915); Robert M. Yerkes, The Benet Versus the Point Scale Method of Measuring Intelligence, 1 J. APP. PSYCHOL. 111 (1917);

LEON J. KAMIN, THE SCIENCE AND POLITICS OF IQ 10 (1974) (noting that Lewis Terman and Robert Yerkes were both pioneers of the Mental Testing Movement and supporters of the Eugenics Movement);


Selden, Transforming Better Babies into Fitter Families, supra note 17, at 204-05 (noting how “Hollingworth framed the causes of varying levels of student performance in eugenic terms”).

110. The federal No Child Left Behind legislation, for example, is also based on extensive reliance on testing, yet that legislation is not condemned by the anti-Darwinians. See No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 § 1116, 115 Stat. 1425, 1478 (2002) (detailing the academic assessment procedures required under the Act).

111. HERBERT SPENCER, THE PRINCIPLES OF BIOLOGY 530-31 (1910) (1864); see WEST, supra note 92, at 106-07.

112. Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927);

see generally MENDEL, supra note 11. [Vol. 2:57

Malthus,113 who complained a century before Darwin that imprudent charity was a drag on civilization.

114 An accurate account of U.S. eugenics could also have quoted Frederick Winslow Taylor, whose ideas of industrial efficiency were extremely important to the Progressive era and were often recited as justification for eugenic measures.

115.Blaming Margaret Sanger for the eugenics movement is similarly misleading. Certainly Sanger supported some eugenic aims, and was not above voicing her contempt for the poor, disabled and minorities

116 But she never held a leadership post within the eugenics movement, because leaders like Charles Davenport

117 were fearful of associating with someone so radical, and for years had argued strenuously against her primary objective: widespread availability of birth control.

118 Moreover, identifying eugenics with abortion ignores the near complete absence of support for abortion among leaders in the eugenics movement.

Charles Davenport himself, in one of first and most widely read texts of the eugenics movement, Heredity in Relation to Eugenics, explained unequivocally that while his eugenic program encompassed “control by the state of the propagation of the mentally incompetent”, it also ruled out the “destruction of the unfit either before or after birth.”

119 Harry Laughlin, Davenport’s first lieutenant in the eugenics cause, and author of the Model Sterilization Act that provided the foundation for the law upheld in Buck v. Bell, voiced similar sentiments. “Preventing the procreation of defectives rather than destroying them before birth, or in infancy, or in the later periods

113. Holmes told his friend Harold Laski: “I am a devout Malthusian as you know.” Letter from Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. to Harold J. Laski (Sept. 16, 1924), in HOLMES-LASKI LETTERS: THE CORRESPONDENCE OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES AND HAROLD J. LASKI, 1916-1935, 658, 658 (Mark DeWolfe Howe ed., 1953).

114. See generally T. R. MALTHUS, AN ESSAY ON THE PRINCIPLE OF POPULATION (1992) (1798); CHASE, supra note 20, at 74-77.


see also Amy L. Fairchild, Policies of Inclusion: Immigrants, Disease, Dependency, and American Immigration Policy at the Dawn and Dusk of the 20th Century, 94 AM. J. PUB. HEALTH 528, 529-30 (2004).

116. For example, Sanger states that “the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the overfertility of the mentally and physically defective.”

Margaret Sanger, The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda, BIRTH CONTROL REV., Oct. 1921, at 5, reprinted in THE SELECTED PAPERS OF MARGARET SANGER, VOLUME 1: THE WOMAN REBEL, 1900-1928, at 321 (Esther Katz ed., 2003).

117. See generally CHASE, supra note 20, at 114-18. 118. Id. at 55 (noting that Davenport declined Sanger’s formal invitation to participate as vice-president in 1925’s Birth Control Conference, not wishing to appear as a supporter of the Birth Control League or the conference, lest it confuse the distinction between eugenics and birth control).

119. Charles Benedict Davenport, Heredity in Relation to Eugenics 4 (1915) (1911).

77 of life, must be the aim of modern eugenics” said Laughlin.

120 Harvey Jordan, an acolyte of Davenport’s, argued strenuously for eugenic sterilization, with no less vehemence and contempt for the poor and disabled than Sanger.

121 Yet Jordan also argued just as strongly against eugenic euthanasia,

122 and Jordan never spoke out in favor of abortion.

123 Claiming that all who put on the mantle of eugenics are responsible for social movements that crystallized long after they were dead requires a cramped idea of eugenics and asks us to believe that anyone who was identified as a “eugenist” was equivalent to everyone else who welcomed that label. Such an assertion is clearly false. But focusing on Darwin, Galton, and Margaret Sanger is more useful for the anti-Darwinians. That focus allows them to link evolution, abortion, and eugenics and taunt liberals who adopt the reform posture of old Progressives.

124 We need to remember that although it is true that Margaret Sanger spoke in favor of eugenics, echoing eugenic themes was also a ploy of evangelist preacher Billy Sunday, who at one point was described at a particularly successful revival, having spent so much time on the influences of heredity that talk of science “almost overshadowed the denunciations of sin.”

125 Neither Sanger nor Sunday can be blamed for the historical footprint left by Hitler.

120. Henry H. Laughlin, Report of the Committee to Study and to Report on the Best Practical Means of Cutting off the Defective Germ-Plasm in the American Population, EUGENICS REC. OFF. BULL. NO. 10A, at 55 (1914);

HENRY HAMILTON LAUGHLIN, EUGENICAL STERILIZATION IN THE UNITED STATES 446-51 (1922) (detailing the Model Eugenical Sterilization Law).

121. Jordan believed that those “grossly and obviously unfit” should not be able to reproduce. See, e.g., Plan Nation-Wide Eugenics Society, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 16, 1913, at 15 (quoting Harvey E. Jordan during the American Association for the Study and Prevention of Infant Mortality (AASPIM) 1913 organizational meeting in Washington, D.C.).

Jordan’s extensive eugenical writings included: Harvey Ernest Jordan, Eugenics: Its Data, Scope and Promise, as Seen by the Anatomist, in EUGENICS: TWELVE UNIVERSITY LECTURES 107 (1914); H.E. Jordan, The Eugenical Aspect of Venereal Disease, 3 TRANSACTIONS AM. ASS’N FOR STUDY & PREVENTION INFANT MORTALITY 156 (1912-1913); H.E. Jordan, The Place of Eugenics in the Medical Curriculum, in PROBLEMS IN EUGENICS: PAPERS COMMUNICATED TO THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL EUGENICS CONGRESS 396 (1912); H.E. Jordan, Heredity as a Factor in the Improvement of Social Conditions, 2 AM. BREEDERS’ MAG. 246 (1911).

122. See Plan Nation-Wide Eugenics Society, supra note 121 (quoting Harvey E. Jordan as stating that “[e]very child born into the world . . . must be saved, if possible” during the AASPIM 1913 organizational meeting in Washington, D.C.).

123. H.E. Jordan, Eugenics: The Rearing of the Human Thoroughbred, 12 CLEV. MED. J. 875 (1912).

124. See, e.g., WEST, supra note 92, at 120-22. 125. 35,000 Hear Sunday Talk to Men Only, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 30, 1917, at 20; see Rev. Wm. A. Sunday, Sermon: Chickens Come Home to Roost (Apr. 29, 1917). SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 78 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW & POLICY [Vol. 2:57


We have had occasion in recent years to rediscover the history of eugenics, and it is an ugly history. The history of eugenics reminds us how fear and greed and hate can be exploited to enable bigotry to flourish against the poor, the disabled, and the merely different—and in some of the worst cases bigotry can be delivered at the point of a surgeon’s scalpel or in a death camp gas chamber. Studying that history has also made it possible to revisit some of the mistakes of the past and make amends—to repudiate unjust laws once used against disabled people, and to apologize to some of the victims of those laws.

Thus it is appropriate to argue for increased sensitivity to the history of disability and to point out troubling trends today suggesting that some of that history is not yet past. We may, at such times, have occasion to invoke the dark shadow of eugenics or even Hitler himself. But particularly when we are acting in service of what we would hope are our own most noble motives, we should be careful that we are not distorting history merely to make debating points, or redefining eugenics as a bludgeon to be used in crushing the political opposition. There is a danger when we take that rediscovered history and cynically manipulate the facts it provides us with in order to run up the rhetorical score.

It is possible to have reasoned arguments and heated debates about topics as controversial as race, abortion, crime, and religion—those arguments are not likely to go away any time soon. But in the ocean of ideas, eugenics was a bottom feeder, taking whatever it needed to make the case against social welfare programs, expensive institutions, and the people who lived in them. Many ideas were swept into the mix, none of them alone sufficient to account for the laws passed to advance the eugenic cause, or to explain the crimes committed in the name of eugenics.

There is no inevitable link between Darwin, Sanger, or even Galton and the Holocaust, any more than there is a simple causal relationship between support for immigration restriction, sterilization, or I.Q. testing and the worst crimes of the Nazis. The moment we begin intentionally distorting historical fact to get an edge in the ongoing culture wars, we risk repeating the tactics of some master manipulators of the past.

When someone wants too glibly to shout the name of Hitler as the epithet of choice with which to tar all opponents, we should remember that Hitler’s own propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels,126 was the author of many such big lies, and the man who did the most in the twentieth century to rewrite history to fit his own agenda was Joseph Stalin.

Treating eugenics merely as one of history’s dirty words, without accurately exploring the context in which it came to be used, or the variety of ideas that played a part in its career, can lead to a debasement of 126. See, e.g., PROCTOR, supra note 60, at 79. SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 2008] DISABILITY, EUGENICS, AND THE CULTURE WARS 79 history itself.

Such a strategy yields no long term benefit to people with disabilities or to those who would advocate for them.  

IV. The Rise of the Institutions 1800 - 1950 D. Protect Society from the Deviant
 Previous Page Next Page To Menu


During this period, fences that had served to protect the residents of the institutions from the dangers of society now served to isolate them in order to protect society from the “menace of feeblemindedness.”

An increasing amount of misinformation about persons with disabilities that they were dangerous, immoral, capable of ruining the gene pool promoted this “menace” theme.

Institution superintendents, who had previously argued for the humane care and protection of persons with disabilities, now said that these people were a danger to their communities. Feeblemindedness had to be prevented; individuals had to be controlled.



“Moral imbecility,” also referred to as juvenile insanity, moral insanity, physical epilepsy, and moral paranoia, was a broad concept that included everything from minor behavior problems to serious aggressiveness. Persons placed in this category were also referred to as “defective delinquents.” These labels implied an aptitude for misconduct, and the people who were given these labels were perceived as potential causes of the social problems of this time.

In 1910, Dr. Henry Goddard using an adaptation on the Binet IQ test, developed a category of mental retardation he called “moron.” This term replaced the terms “moral imbecile” and “backward,” and added the notion of heredity.

Eugenics Past and Present

Remembering Buck v. Bell

“Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes


Michael J. Berson and Bárbara Cruz

At the end of the nineteenth century, as Charles Darwin’s theories of evolution were making their way to all levels of society, scientists and the general public began to consider how selective breeding could improve a species’s chance of survival. The theories were applied to the human species as well. A number of selective breeding enthusiasts asked: to eliminate undesirable characteristics in humans, should some people be considered so “defective” or “inferior” that they should not be allowed to reproduce?

Out of this climate the eugenics movement grew. First coined by Sir Francis Galton, the term is derived from the Greek word meaning well-born or good in birth. Galton, a cousin of Darwin, incorporated the Darwinian idea of survival of the fittest into his notion of eugenics. The goal of eugenics was the improvement of the human species through the careful selection of parents. Galton identified two primary processes to achieve this end.

Positive eugenics encouraged individuals who were above average both mentally and physically to produce more offspring. Negative eugenics proposed that individuals who were below average should have fewer or no children. This second proposal could be achieved through institutional segregation, marriage restrictions, or sterilization.

Who were the early eugenicists? Some scholars believe that they were well intentioned and progressive, concerned with bettering humanity.1 After all, this was the Progressive Era, a time of hope and reform. Gerald Grob points out that eugenics advocates were persuaded that they were acting on behalf of a noble cause that would benefit humanity. They believed that medical and scientific knowledge, combined with a new technology, had reached a point in time in which the eradication of inherited defects was possible.2

Despite these idealistic beginnings, the eugenics movement had devastating—and in some cases lasting—worldwide effects. The most obvious and extreme example is the use of eugenics in Nazi Germany. Other, perhaps less known, practices include those in Great Britain, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, Finland, Austria, Brazil, Japan, Canada, and China.

The movement had substantial support in the United States as well, from citizen and charity groups, politicians, physicians, scientists, and mental health professionals. Proposed policies ranged from segregation laws to marriage prohibitions to immigration restrictions to sterilization, culminating in the Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell.

The upcoming seventy-fifth anniversary of this momentous legal case presents an occasion to introduce students to the history of eugenics, its practice in the United States and throughout the world, and its lasting legacy. Although the topic is tempting to ignore, instructors should welcome the opportunity to familiarize students with a movement that reminds us that our quest for improvement can never be divorced from ethical questions underlying those ideals.

Eugenics in the United States

The U.S. eugenics movement was most active between the 1870s and World War I. In addition to Darwin’s and Galton’s influences, the movement benefited from the 1877 publication of Richard Dugdale’s study examining the criminality, insanity, and poverty of a family nicknamed “the Jukes.” While interviewing prisoners during an inspection of a jail, Dugdale realized that six prisoners were related. He eventually tracked down 709 relatives who were related, either by marriage or by blood, through five generations.

Although Dugdale’s study stressed that the Jukes’s misfortune could be blamed as much on environmental factors as on heredity, it facilitated inaccurate beliefs that behaviors are genetically inherited. Many people concluded that crime, poverty, and disease were both innate and closely associated with sexual promiscuity, mental illness, and idiocy.3 At the time, scholars overlooked the fact that Dugdale’s findings included only one case of mental retardation out of 709 subjects.

During the years following the study, eugenicists offered a variety of solutions for what they saw as the problems of inherited criminality, harlotry, mental retardation, and feeblemindedness. One solution was the institutional internment and segregation of people with cognitive or emotional impairments. Another was the prohibition of marriage between people with developmental delays or social maladjustments.

In 1895, Connecticut became the first state to ban marriage between “defective” persons. Eventually, forty-one other states ratified comparable legislation. But the marriage laws proved difficult to enforce, and eugenicists turned to other, more drastic measures.4

The medical profession introduced new possibilities for eradicating “the problem.” Eugenicists had already touted castration as a means of protecting institutionalized patients from the evils of sexual promiscuity and ensuring that they had no offspring.5

In 1897, the first reported vasectomy in the United States offered a seemingly less extreme method of sterilization. Five years after its first use to treat prostatitis, a surgeon publicized the procedure as a type of eugenic sterilization. His patients felt and behaved better as a result of the surgery, he reported—an assertion that proponents used for the next forty years.6

Armed with seemingly scientific and medical explanations, eugenicists wanted to make sterilization legal. By 1910, genetic statutes had been enacted in Washington, California, and Connecticut, and by the end of the 1920s, twenty-four states had passed involuntary sterilization laws.7

A major force behind this increase in eugenics legislation was Harry Laughlin, superintendent of the Eugenics Record Office (ERO). In 1922, Laughlin authored a model sterilization law that became the prototype for similar laws enacted in the United States. By January 1935, approximately 20,000 involuntary eugenic sterilizations had been performed in the United States, half of which were conducted in California.8

What was the public’s response?

For his service to eugenics and his efforts to cleanse humanity of defective genes, Laughlin received an honorary doctoral degree from Heidelberg University in Nazi Germany in 1936. Other supporters of eugenics included John D. Rockefeller, Winston Churchill, Edward Thorndike, Alexander Graham Bell, G. Stanley Hall, George Bernard Shaw, John H. Kellogg, H. G. Wells, Aldous Huxley, John Maynard Keynes, Margaret Sanger, and Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt once admonished, “Some day we will realize that the prime duty, the inescapable duty, of the good citizen of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world.”9

Another major motivation for eugenics was the heavy immigration—and its attendant xenophia—that the United States experienced around the turn of the century. Many psychiatrists warned that if better medical inspections of immigrants were not performed, the consequences would be deportation or sterilization. Eugenicists’ testimony before Congress helped pass the exclusionary 1924 Immigration Act. The economic depression of the 1920s and 1930s, with its high unemployment and poverty rates, further contributed to the public’s tolerance for eugenic sterilization.

The eugenicists were anxious to see how the statutes would hold up legally and constitutionally at the federal level. In effect, supporters welcomed Buck v. Bell as a test case to legitimize the position once and for all. When the superintendent of Virginia’s State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded Persons challenged the Virginia sterilization statute, the practice was finally brought before the U.S. Supreme Court. The case, Buck v. Bell, would have far-reaching implications for public opinion and social policy.

Buck v. Bell

In April 1927, the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, heard testimony on Buck v. Bell. The appeal involved Carrie Buck, a young woman who, at seventeen, was deemed a “moral imbecile” and was committed to the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded Persons. The state argued that Buck was the daughter of a “feebleminded” mother in the same institution and the mother of a seven-month-old child of subnormal intelligence. Although Harry Laughlin never examined the Buck family for the original court case, he summarized the state’s position: “These people belong to the shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of anti-social whites of the South.”10

Smith and Nelson’s 1989 book The Sterilization of Carrie Buck provides a fascinating and tragic account of Carrie Buck’s story. At age three, Carrie was taken away from her biological mother, Emma Buck, who was interned in the colony in 1920. Carrie progressed normally in school and was recommended for promotion by her last teacher.

But her adoptive family, the Dobbs, treated Carrie differently than their own children, burdening her with extra chores and requiring her to do housework for other families. During one of the family’s out-of-town trips, Carrie was raped by one of the Dobbs’s nephews.

When Carrie told her adoptive parents, the Dobbs blamed her. Once they discovered that Carrie was pregnant, they wanted to rid themselves of her to protect their family’s reputation. In 1923, the family asked a local court to certify her “feebleminded” and to have her admitted to the same institution as her mother. Despite unconvincing and conflicting testimony from the Dobbs, the judge ruled that Carrie was a suitable candidate for the colony. In 1924, after the birth of her own child, seventeen-year-old Carrie was admitted. Carrie’s baby was taken in by the Dobbs family.

The colony’s superintendent, Albert Priddy—a medical doctor who performed dozens of legally questionable eugenic sterilizations—insisted that Carrie needed sterilization or she would have to be confined “both for her protection and the protection of society . . . until her childbearing age [was] past.”11 Priddy’s top priority was to sterilize “feebleminded” women who could work outside the colony.12

As in other states, Virginia had enacted a law that allowed the sterilization of individuals who were thought to carry defective genes. The law was approved on March 20, 1924, and was cited later in Buck v. Bell:

The health of the patient and the welfare of society may be promoted in certain cases by sterilization of mental defectives under careful safeguards, act; that sterilization may be effected in males by vasectomy and females by salpingectomy, without serious pain or substantial danger to life; the commonwealth is supporting in various institutions many defective persons who if now discharged would become a menace but if incapable of procreating might be discharged with safety and self-supporting with benefit to themselves and society; and the experience has shown that heredity plays an important part in the transmission of insanity, imbecility.13

Under this law, the colony proposed that it was in the best interest of the patient and society that Carrie be sexually sterilized because she had a hereditary form of feeblemindedness.

Carrie’s attorney argued that in no case could involuntary sterilization be justified. In addition, the attorney said that the Virginia statute violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that sterilization was cruel and unusual punishment. Unfortunately for Carrie, her defense attorney, Irving Whitehead, was a eugenics supporter and board member of the colony.14 Legal scholars are certain that Whitehead conspired with his opponents and that his “suspiciously weak defense” failed to provide a suitable challenge to the statute.15

Of the nine-member court, only one judge dissented. On May 2, 1927, the eighty-six-year-old Justice Holmes delivered the majority opinion of the court, upholding the public welfare over the rights of individuals:

It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover the Fallopian tubes [Jacobsen v. Massachusetts 197 U.S. 11]. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.16

Thus, the court found that the statute did not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Holmes also noted that sterilization could not be considered cruel and unusual punishment because it was not a punishment; it was a means to help Carrie Buck return to the community. Consequently, Carrie Buck was sterilized by Dr. Bell for the “good of herself” and society in October 1927.17 Carrie’s sister, also institutionalized, was later brought into the hospital for appendicitis and was sterilized.

From Virginia to Germany

Naturally, eugenicists rejoiced at the outcome of Buck v. Bell. The judgment prompted other states to pass and enact sterilization laws of their own, initiating a tenfold increase in the number of annual involuntary sterilizations.18

More than 27,000 sterilizations were performed within ten years of the verdict.19 In fact, some scholars believe that up to 100,000 Americans may have been forcibly sterilized.20Curiously, the Buck v. Bell decision did not seem to attract much attention from the general public and received only cursory treatment in the press.21

But the case was followed closely overseas by a country eager to institute a national policy of eugenics: Nazi Germany. Adopted in 1933, the Eugenic Sterilization Law sanctioned the involuntary sterilization of German citizens who possessed hereditary afflictions (such as blindness), epilepsy, mental illnesses (such as schizophrenia), and physical handicaps.

The edict was based on and even borrowed language from Laughlin’s prototype sterilization law. Within one year, more than 56,000 Germans had been deemed “defective” and were sterilized;22 throughout the 1930s, the Reich sterilized some 450,000 people.23Although the legislation began with involuntary sterilization and segregation, it eventually included euthanasia. The policy soon targeted Jews and other “undesirables,” escalating into genocide and the Holocaust.

As the atrocities of the Nazi concentration camps were publicized and entered into the public consciousness, eugenics in the United States began to fall into disfavor. Critics argued that such social ills as poverty, prostitution, and homelessness were not genetically determined but were the result of dire economic and social conditions. Therefore, eugenic sterilization was not only unjust, it was also ineffective.

Modern-Day Movements

Although the simple view of human inheritance has been displaced by a more comprehensive understanding of genetics, people continue to link specific genes to particular human traits and behaviors. Recent studies have attempted to link a number of human characteristics—ranging from alcoholism to homosexuality to aggression to criminality—to genetic markers. But linking complex human traits and behaviors to genetics and heredity is not only erroneous, it can also be dangerous.

The publication of Herrnstein and Murray’s The Bell Curve in 1994 renewed the debate linking intelligence with ethnicity and social class. The book’s central thesis proposed that the significant disparity in intelligence among different ethnic groups could not be eliminated by government programs or legislation intended to improve and equalize economic, social, and educational opportunities.24 Most experts immediately condemned this misguided thinking, but the book appealed to policymakers, segments of the general public, and even some academics.

Two years later, Richard Lynn, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the University of Ulster in Northern Ireland, published Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration of Modern Populations, which connected human genetics, social class, and intelligence. His central thesis—that improvements in health care and welfare allow people of low intelligence to have more children—led him to conclude that society is experiencing a general decline in the quality of civilized life:

Natural selection has broken down. In centuries past, it did the job for us of weeding out those with low moral character or low intelligence. There was a high mortality rate. Now the underclass survive and have children. Obviously, some measures need to be taken.25

Strains of the eugenics movements also exist in other countries. China’s one-child policy is a well-known example. It was introduced in 1979 as a voluntary program, but within two years, economic and social incentives, coupled with intense community pressure, had a measurable effect on the birth rate—but the program also incited controversy. In a culture where male heirs are prized, the policy has resulted in some selective abortions in favor of boys, abandonment of baby girls, infanticide, and forced sterilizations. Parents who pledge to have one child but have a second must pay back all the one-child compensation they had received, as well as receive additional financial penalties. The State Family Planning Commission announced that the strict family planning regulation would continue until at least 2003, the end of the current government’s term of office (see Figure 1).26

In Singapore, the government embraced a dual-message approach: encouraging the wealthy and educated to have children while offering incentives to the poor and unschooled to be sterilized after having one or two children. Under the program, the children of university-educated parents received tax discounts and a preference in school selection. Disincentives for poor, single mothers included higher hospital fees for having a third child and cash incentives to be sterilized after the first or second child. But because of Singapore’s overall declining birthrate, the government has begun to offer a lucrative “Baby Bonus”—savings account deposits and fully paid maternity leave—in hopes of persuading the wealthy and educated population to multiply.27

In Sweden, where more than 60,000 people were sterilized under the Swedish Sterilization Act, recent controversy regarding the prevention of reproduction among the country’s “socially inferior” citizens has resurfaced. Between 1935 and 1976, the government’s eugenics program was designed to eliminate social undesirables while simultaneously improving the Nordic racial stock. In 1997, Swedish journalist Maciej Zaremba disclosed a forty-year history of adolescent girls who were involuntarily and arbitrarily sterilized for being sexually promiscuous, unintelligent, or antisocial.28 Other reports revealed that some “undesirable” Swedes were sterilized for having bad eyesight, being of mixed race, or having “unmistakable Gypsy features.”29

After the revelations in Sweden, citizens’ groups in Japan demanded formal apologies and compensation from the government for involuntary sterilizations carried out in their country between 1949 and 1995. With the aim of improving the Japanese people, a law permitted doctors to sterilize people without their consent if they were deemed mentally or physically handicapped or had certain hereditary diseases. The Japanese government refused to apologize or pay compensation, arguing that the procedures were legal and a matter of public record.30

Finally, in North America, Canada and the United States share a similar history with respect to eugenics. In Canada, eugenic sterilization, which was legal between 1929 and 1972, was performed on thousands of people; years later, seven hundred of those sterilized without their consent filed suit in Alberta and received compensation.31 Although the movement fell out of favor in much the same way that it did in the United States, a recent survey of medical professionals has led some health law experts to point to a revival of a Canadian eugenics movement.32

An Ethical Future?

Some critics warn that aspects of current genetic research are eerily reminiscent of a eugenics philosophy in modern medicine. Through programs such as the Human Genome Project, an effort to map the entire human genetic makeup, we now have more information than ever about genes, chromosomes, DNA, and particular medical conditions and diseases. Although we cannot fault modern science for finding biological markers for certain medical conditions, teachers must help students understand how linking complex human traits and behaviors to heredity is erroneous and may lead to unjust social policies.

Some historians worry that contemporary economic and social problems can give rise to a new eugenics movement. Given the perennial struggle over limited resources, we can expect eugenic proposals to resurface from time to time. The story of Carrie Buck provides a point of departure for discussing and understanding these multifaceted issues. Let us hope that educating present and future generations will avert another “disgraceful chapter of American legal history.”33


1. Paul Gray, “Cursed by Eugenics,” New York (11 January 1999): 84-85.

2. Gerald Grob, “Introduction,” in The Surgical Solution: A History of Involuntary Sterilization in the United States, ed. Phillip R. Reilly (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), xi.

3. Ruth Macklin and Willard Gaylin, eds., Mental Retardation and Sterilization: A Problem of Competency and Paternalism (New York: Plenum Press, 1981).

4. Phillip R. Reilly, The Surgical Solution: A History of Involuntary Sterilization in the United States (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991).

5. Macklin and Gaylin, Mental Retardation.

6. Ian Robert Dowbiggin, Keeping America Sane: Psychiatry and Eugenics in the United States, 1880-1940 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press).

7. Daniel J. Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985).

8. Stephen Jay Gould, The Flamingo’s Smile: Reflections in Natural History (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1985).

9. Matt Ridley, “The New Eugenics,” The National Review (31 July 2000): 34-36.

10. David J. Smith, “The Bell Curve and Carrie Buck: Eugenics Revisited,” Mental Retardation (February 1995): 61.

11. David J. Smith and K. Ray Nelson, The Sterilization of Carrie Buck (Fair Hills, N.J.: New Horizon Press, 1989), 47.

12. Paul A. Lombardo, “Three Generations, No Imbeciles: New Light on Buck v. Bell,” New York University Law Review (April 1985): 30-62.

13. Buck v. Bell. 274 U.S. 200, 47 S. Ct. 584 (1927).

14. Steven Selden, Inheriting Shame: The Story of Eugenics and Racism in America (New York: Teachers College Press, 1999).

15. Lombardo, “Three Generations,” 31.

16. United States Supreme Court, United States Reports 274 (1927), 207.

17. After Priddy’s death in 1925, Dr. J. H. Bell headed the Colony—hence the case name.

18. Dowbiggin, Keeping America Sane.

19. Smith and Nelson, The Sterilization of Carrie Buck.

20. “Swedes Resent Scapegoat Role in Eugenics Controversy,” The Financial Times (6 September 1997): 2.

21. Smith and Nelson, The Sterilization of Carrie Buck.

22. Samuel Holmes, Human Genetics and Its Social Import (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1936).

23. Robert Fox and Ben Fenton, “Eugenics: The Skeleton in the Liberals’ Cupboard,” The Daily Telegraph (29 August 1997): 4.

24. Dowbiggin, Keeping America Sane.

25. As quoted in Luke Harding, “Academic Defends Underclass Claim,” The Guardian (23 December 1996): 7.

26. David Rennie, “Chinese Told One Child Is Rule to 2003,” The Daily Telegraph (London) (20 December 2000):13.

27. Richard Beeston, “Singapore Pays Parents to Have More Children,” The Times (London) (22 August 2000): 14.

28. Paul Gallagher, “The Man Who Told the Secret,” Columbia Journalism Review (January/February 1998): 65-66.

29. Associated Press, “Four Decades of Sterilizing Own Citizens Haunts Sweden,” The Post and Courier (26 August 1997): 8A.

30. Associated Press, “Japan Refuses to Admit Error Over Sterilization of Women,” The Post and Courier (18 September 1997): 11A.

31. Catherine Ford, “Alberta’s Sterilization Debate,” The Gazette (Montreal) (16 March 1998): B3.

32. Marily Moysa, “Eugenics Movement Revival? Evidence of Resurgence Reflected in Response to Medical Survey,” The Gazette (Montreal) (31 December 1995): A5.

33. Lombardo, “Three Generations,” 45.

Teaching Resources


Bajema, Carl J., ed. Eugenics: Then and Now. Stroudsburg, Penn.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1976. This collection of historical documents on eugenics includes essays by Galton, Darwin, and Schockley. Laughlin’s “Model Eugenical Sterilization Law” and transcripts from Buck v. Bell are also included.

Ginsburg, Faye D., and Rayna Rapp, eds. The New World Order: The Global Politics of Reproduction. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995. The collection of essays investigates reproduction policies around the world.

Paul, Diane B. The Politics of Heredity: Essays on Eugenics, Biomedicine, and the Nature-Nurture Debate. New York: SUNY Press, 1998. Ten essays explore the connections among science, social power, and public policy.

Paul, Diane B. Controlling Human Heredity. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press, 1995. By tracing the history of eugenics, Paul analyzes what events shaped its development and how eugenics became so widely appealing. The book also explores the impact of eugenics on modern-day genetic medicine.

Selden, Steven. Inheriting Shame: The Story of Eugenics and Racism in America. New York: Teachers College Press, 1999. Selden offers a concise history of American eugenics, its impact on public schools, and ethical issues concerning contemporary genetic programs.

Smith, J. David, and K. Ray Nelson. The Sterilization of Carrie Buck. Fair Hills, N.J.: New Horizon Press, 1989. This thorough and accessible book recounts Carrie Buck’s life, the trial, and Buck’s subsequent sterilization.


Eugenics Bibliography
The Institute of Law, Psychiatry, and Public Policy at the University of Virginia developed a thorough reference list on the history of the eugenics movement in the United States.

Eugenics: To Be or Not To Be?
Created by a group of students at the University of New South Wales, this site offers a history, working definitions, and discussions of legal and moral issues surrounding eugenics.

Eugenics and the Misuse of Genetic Information to Restrict Reproductive Freedom
Teachers can use this official statement, approved by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Human Genetics in October 1998, as a primary source document to stimulate class discussion.

The Image Archives on the American Eugenics Movement
This website provides a fascinating and troubling record of more than 1,200 photographs, charts, reports, medical documents, posters, and other images on eugenics in the United States.

Legal Information Institute
The Legal Information Institute houses a collection of historic decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Users have access to the full decision of Buck v. Bell.

PBS People and Discoveries
This data bank of twentieth century scientists and their biographies provides links to Charles Davenport, William Shockley, and other luminaries in the field.

Michael J. Berson and Bárbara Cruz are associate professors in the Department of Secondary Education, College of Education, University of South Florida.

See also:

Teaching Tips

The history of eugenics and the Buck v. Bell case provide a number of opportunities for instruction, reflection, and debate. Far from an exhaustive list, the following instructional strategies can help teachers begin exploring this little-known event and its far-reaching consequences.


Have students construct a timeline of the eugenics movement, noting early theories of heredity and social Darwinism, key sterilization legislation, the Buck v. Bell case, World War II, and modern-day movements. A sample timeline is included in this article.


After students research the Buck v. Bell case, the class may conduct a role-play of the event. Some of the roles could include Carrie Buck, the Supreme Court Justices, the prosecution and defense attorneys, the Colony’s chief, and the Dobbs family. Students can retry the case either as if they were living in Buck’s time or according to today’s standards. Have the justices discuss the trial, come to an agreement about the outcome, and explain their decision to the rest of the class.

Carrie Buck’s Daughter

Justice Holmes’s reference to “three generations of imbeciles” included Carrie Buck’s daughter, Vivian. Although the child was diagnosed as mentally deficient at six months, school records and other evidence indicate that the child was normal and even bright by many standards. Ask students to read the chapter “Carrie Buck’s Daughter,” in Stephen Jay Gould’s The Flamingo’s Smile. Discuss this interesting, if tragic, postscript to this often-forgotten character in the Buck saga. Have students generate questions that they would ask Vivian in an interview. As a creative writing exercise, ask students to imagine that they are Vivian Buck and, in her voice, write about how it felt to be mislabeled and misjudged.

Debate on Involuntary Sterilization

Have students divide into groups and debate the following topics:

  • Are there any circumstances where the sexual sterilization of people should be allowed? In what cases? Who should decide?
  • Although modern research has concluded that Carrie Buck and her daughter were probably of normal intelligence, discussion continues on the rights of the mentally retarded. Should the mildly mentally retarded be involuntarily sterilized “for their own good”? What about the moderately mentally retarded? The severely mentally retarded?
  • The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) declares that all “men and women of full age . . . have the right to marry and found a family” (Article 16). Does involuntary sterilization—for whatever reason—violate the UN’s Declaration?

Patients’ Rights

When, fifty years later, reporters asked Carrie Buck about her sterilization, she replied, “They just told me I had to have an operation, that was all.” Indeed, thousands of people who were sterilized in North America had the procedure done without their knowledge or consent. Lead a class discussion on patients’ rights. Under what circumstances might a doctor or a hospital have the right to make a decision for a patient? Have students create a Code of Ethical Standards for a hospital in their community.

Case Study

In Breeding Better Vermonters: The Eugenics Project in the Green Mountain State (Boston, Mass.: University Press of New England, 1999), historian Nancy Gallagher provides a fascinating account of Vermont’s sterilization program, which attempted to breed out poor health and bad character. One of the main targets, the Abenaki Indians, claimed that the program was part of a larger government scheme to eradicate their group. Have students investigate other examples of targeting racial and ethnic groups through eugenics. Students can use resources from their school library, the public library, and the Internet.

Discussion of Bioethics

Modern genetic and reproductive technologies have led to bioethical issues, such as sperm banks, in-vitro fertilization, cloning, artificial wombs, genetic screening, sex selection, “designer embryos,” and the purposeful creation of babies for the future harvesting of organs. Ask students when these technologies might be justifiable? What is the potential for abuse?

Using Genetic Screenings

Public debates in the United Kingdom have focused on whether insurance companies should be allowed to use genetic screenings when underwriting life or health insurance. Heated discussions continue in the United States as to whether employers should use genetic information in hiring and firing practices. After studying and debating the issue, have students write a position paper supporting their viewpoints.

Cross-Cultural Issues

Copy and distribute Figure 1 to the class or make an overhead transparency. After informing students about China’s one-child policy and its ramifications for genetic testing, lead a discussion on cultural values and mores. A related topic for discussion is population growth and involuntary sterilization. Should the United States limit trading with China to punish the government for their population growth programs?

Figure 1

What Do Geneticists Think?

Percent agreeing with the statement China Britain United States
Couples who are both carriers of a genetic disease should not have children 92 34 44
Genetic testing should be included in pre-employment physical examinations 86 46 59
Governments should require premarital carrier tests 86 4 5
A woman’s abortion decision should be her own 40 68 85

Source: Andy Coghlan, “Perfect People’s Republic,” New Scientist (24 October 1998): 18.

Eugenic Sterilization Laws

Paul Lombardo, University of Virginia

While some eugenicists privately supported practices such as euthanasia or even genocide, legally-mandated sterilization was the most radical policy supported by the American eugenics movement. A number of American physicians performed sterilizations even before the surgery was legally approved, though no reliable accounting of the practice exists prior to passage of sterilization laws. Indiana enacted the first law allowing sterilization on eugenic grounds in 1907, with Connecticut following soon after. Despite these early statutes, sterilization did not gain widespread popular approval until the late 1920s.

Advocacy in favor of sterilization was one of Harry Laughlin’s first major projects at the Eugenics Record Office. In 1914, he published a Model Eugenical Sterilization Law that proposed to authorize sterilization of the “socially inadequate” – people supported in institutions or “maintained wholly or in part by public expense. The law encompassed the “feebleminded, insane, criminalistic, epileptic, inebriate, diseased, blind, deaf; deformed; and dependent” – including “orphans, ne’er-do-wells, tramps, the homeless and paupers.” By the time the Model Law was published in 1914, twelve states had enacted sterilization laws.

By 1924, approximately 3,000 people had been involuntarily sterilized in America; the vast majority (2,500) in California. That year Virginia passed a Eugenical Sterilization Act based on Laughlin’s Model Law. It was adopted as part of a cost-saving strategy to relieve the tax burden in a state where public facilities for the “insane” and “feebleminded” had experienced rapid growth. The law was also written to protect physicians who performed sterilizing operations from malpractice lawsuits. Virginia’s law asserted that “heredity plays an important part in the transmission of insanity, idiocy, imbecility, epilepsy and crime…” It focused on “defective persons” whose reproduction represented “a menace to society.”

Carrie Buck, a seventeen-year-old girl from Charlottesville, Virginia, was picked as the first person to be sterilized. Carrie had a child, but was not married. Her mother Emma was already a resident at an asylum, the Virginia Colony for the Epileptic and the Feebleminded. Officials at the Virginia Colony said that Carrie and her mother shared the hereditary traits of “feeblemindedness” and sexually promiscuity. To those who believed that such traits were genetically transmitted, Carrie fit the law’s description as a “probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring.” A legal challenge was arranged on Carrie’s behalf to test the constitutional validity of the law.

At her trial, several witnesses offered evidence of Carrie’s inherited “defects” and those of her mother Emma. Colony Superintendent Dr. Albert Priddy testified that Emma Buck had “a record of immorality, prostitution, untruthfulness and syphilis.” His opinion of the Buck family more generally was: “These people belong to the shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of anti-social whites of the South.” Although Harry Laughlin never met Carrie, he sent a written deposition echoing Priddy’s conclusions about Carrie’s “feeblemind-edness” and “moral delinquency.”

Sociologist Arthur Estabrook, of the Eugenics Record Office, traveled to Virginia to testify against Carrie. He and a Red Cross nurse examined Carrie’s baby Vivian and concluded that she was “below average” and “not quite normal.” Relying on these comments, the judge concluded that Carrie should be sterilized to prevent the birth of other “defective” children.

The decision was appealed to United States Supreme Court. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., himself a student of eugenics, wrote the formal opinion for the Court in the case of Buck v. Bell (1927). His opinion repeated the “facts” in Carrie’s case, concluding that a “deficient” mother, daughter, and granddaughter justified the need for sterilization. The decision includes the now infamous words: It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

Recent scholarship has shown that Carrie Buck’s sterilization was based on a false “diagnosis” and her defense lawyer conspired with the lawyer for the Virginia Colony to guarantee that the sterilization law would be upheld in court. Carrie’s illegitimate child was not the result of promiscuity; she had been raped by a relative of her foster parents. School records also prove that Vivian was not “feebleminded.” Her 1st grade report card showed that Vivian was a solid “B” student, received an “A” in deportment, and had been on the honor roll.

Nevertheless, Buck v. Bell supplied a precedent for the eventual sterilization of approximately 8,300 Virginians. Borrowing from Laughlin’s Model Law, the German Nazi government adopted a law in 1933 that provided the legal basis for sterilizing more than 350,000 people. Laughlin proudly published a translation of the German Law for the Prevention of Defective Progeny in The Eugenical News. In 1936, Laughlin was awarded an honorary degree from the University of Heidelberg as a tribute for his work in “the science of racial cleansing.”

The second Supreme Court case generated by the eugenics movement tested a 1935 Oklahoma law that prescribed involuntary sexual sterilization for repeat criminals. Jack Skinner was chosen to test the law’s constitutionality. He was a three-time felon, guilty of stealing chickens at age nineteen, and convicted twice in later years for armed robbery. By the time his case was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1942 some 13 states had laws specifically permitting sterilization of criminals.

The opinion striking down the sterilization law in the case of Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) was written by Justice William O. Douglas. He highlighted the inequity of Oklahoma’s law by noting that a three-time chicken thief could be sterilized while a three-time embezzler could not. Said Douglas: “We have not the slightest basis for inferring that … the inheritability of criminal traits follows the neat legal distinctions which the law has marked between those two offenses.”

Despite the Skinner case, sterilization of people in institutions for the mentally ill and mentally retarded continued through the mid-1970’s. At one time or another, 33 states had statutes under which more than 60,000 Americans endured involuntary sterilization. The Buck v. Bell precedent allowing sterilization of the so-called “feebleminded” has never been overruled.

To learn more from an interesting source, click on the links below:


by Augustus Blackstone

The Sovereign, The System: The Interface The Errant Sovereign’s Handbook,

Volume II,

Augustus Blackstone

Read, also,


by Augustus Blackstone





Am J Public Health. 2002 May; 92(5): 742–752.
PMCID: PMC3222231

Making Better Babies: Public Health and Race Betterment in Indiana, 1920–1935


In 1920, Indiana’s Division of Infant and Child Hygiene inaugurated its first Better Babies Contest at the state fair. For the next 12 years, these contests were the centerpiece of a dynamic infant and maternal welfare program that took shape in Indiana during the decade of the federal Sheppard–Towner act. More than just a lively spectacle for fairgoers, these contests brought public health, “race betterment,” and animal breeding together in a unique manner.

This article describes one of the most popular expressions of public health and race betterment in rural America. It also raises questions about the intersections between hereditarian and medical conceptions of human improvement during the early 20th century, especially with respect to child breeding and rearing.

BY 8 AM ON THE MORNING OF September 3, 1929, dozens of mothers were lined up in front of the Better Babies Building at the Indiana State Fair, eagerly waiting for the doors to open.1 Since 1920, and in increasing numbers, babies from nearly every Indiana county had been weighed, measured, and tested at the state fair by physicians and psychologists affiliated with the State Board of Health’s Division of Infant and Child Hygiene

During the 1920s, this division launched a multifaceted program of “child saving” and maternal education, which included radio talks, mother’s classes, the screening of hygiene films, statistical reports, and consultation clinics. The Better Babies Contest, however, was by far the division’s most spectacular and beloved event, drawing hundreds of young entrants and thousands of curious onlookers to the state fairgrounds during the week of Labor Day.

Each year, more and more Hoosiers—as Indianans like to refer to themselves—crowded into the Better Baby facilities. They watched nurses demonstrate infant feeding techniques, collected free pamphlets such as the Indiana Mother’s Baby Book, or perused displays about nutrition and the virtues of sterilized and sparkling bathrooms and kitchens. While individual girls and boys, twins, and triplets competed for blue ribbons and cash prizes, tired mothers could find refuge at the rest tent and noncontestant children could romp in the playground or nap peacefully in the nursery. According to many physicians, the Indianapolis News, and the promotional newsletterThe Hub of the Universe, the Better Babies Contest was one of Indiana’s most anticipated yearly events.2

At the helm of the better babies program was Dr Ada E. Schweitzer. Over the course of little more than a decade, Schweitzer, appointed director of the newly created Division of Infant and Child Hygiene in 1919, assembled one of the most vibrant public health agencies in the nation. Immediately before she was ousted and the division was disbanded in 1933, Schweitzer counted 4 physicians, 4 nurses, and 5 assistants on her core staff.3

During her 14-year reign, Schweitzer worked sedulously to lower infant and maternal death rates and convince Indianans of the importance of scientific motherhood and child rearing. She lectured to hundreds of neighborhood and civic associations, penned voluminous articles and poems, assessed the physical condition of babies in every one of the state’s 92 counties, and fastidiously managed the affairs of her industrious division. Seemingly unfazed by a taxing travel schedule, Schweitzer could frequently be found adding miles to the division’s child hygiene mobile, which had been equipped with a generator to project movies and lantern slides in remote towns and villages. She was even known to take to the air in a 2-seater airplane to arrive punctually for speaking engagements.

4 In part owing to Schweitzer’s efforts, Indiana’s infant mortality dropped by one third, from 8.2% in 1920 to 5.7% in 1930.

5In this article, I explore not only Schweitzer’s better baby crusade but also the particular circumstances that gave rise to such a dynamic child welfare project in Indiana from 1919 to 1933.

6 This work flourished because of the state’s concern with public health and eugenics. By 1907, for example, Indiana had a pure food statute and a vital statistics act on the books and, furthermore, had passed the country’s first eugenic sterilization law. In 1915, the Indiana State Board of Health was ranked sixth nationwide, in terms of effectiveness, by the American Medical Association.

7During this period many Indiana health reformers, including Schweitzer, frightened by what they perceived to be an escalating menace of the feeble-minded, joined the Indiana State Mental Hygiene Association.

8 Through legal and educational means, Indiana Progressives sought to control procreation and endorsed only the birth of the “best” and healthiest babies. For many Hoosiers, born and raised as farmers, breeding superior children was just a step away from producing heartier corn, pigs, and cattle.

9The activities of the Division of Infant and Child Hygiene multiplied markedly in the 1920s owing to the resources made available by the federal Sheppard–Towner Act, passed in 1921.

10 Administered by the US Children’s Bureau, this act provided matching funds to states that approved “enabling legislation” and established agencies devoted to infant and maternal welfare. Schweitzer, who had preexisting ties to the Children’s Bureau, astutely took advantage of the support granted by Sheppard– Towner. With Schweitzer serving as the intermediary, the convergence of state and federal infant and maternal hygiene programs proved exceptionally efficacious in Indiana.

The success of the Division of Infant and Child Hygiene was also facilitated by Indiana’s demography and topography. In 1920, the state’s population hovered at close to 3 million residents, 95% of whom were native-born and 97% of whom were White. The bulk of Indiana’s African American and immigrant communities lived a marginalized and segregated existence in the cities of Indianapolis, Gary, and East Chicago.

11 Unlike Progressive reformers in diverse, multilingual states such as New York, Illinois, and California, Schweitzer and other Indiana child savers did not need to translate their message into foreign languages or tailor their “Americanization” campaigns for Polish, Italian, or Mexican newcomers.

12 Instead, the primary targets of public health and race betterment efforts in Indiana were poor and working-class Whites, especially impoverished farm dwellers living beyond the orbit of urbanization and industrialization.

Despite Indiana’s unusual makeup, it has often been characterized as the quintessentially American state, a reputation most decidedly earned by the 1929 publication of Robert and Helen Lynd’s Middletown: A Study in Modern American Culture, which examined the city of Muncie.

13 If Middletown encapsulated the values of America as idealized in the 1920s, then tracing the emergence of its better babies movement should reveal a great deal about the largely understudied interplay between public health and race betterment in the country as a whole during the first half of the 20th century.14

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> Object name is Babiescloseup.jpg


The Indiana Child Creed (sidebar) entered the Hoosier vernacular in 1915 when it debuted as the epigraph of the Indiana Mothers’ Baby Book.

15 Published by the State Board of Health, this advice manual was distributed free of charge, along with a letter of introduction, to every mother who registered her newborn with the state.

16 Over the subsequent 2 decades this creed, an awkward patchwork of eugenic, public health, Protestant, and Progressive ideas, would be printed in hundreds of articles and tracts and recited resolutely by the state’s health advocates. Although it is impossible to gauge how many Hoosiers absorbed or heeded the child creed, its appearance signified the inception of better baby work in Indiana.

Promoted on 3 interconnected levels—local, state, and federal—child welfare programs took shape and began to coalesce in the Hoosier heartland in the late 1910s and early 1920s.

Indiana’s burgeoning interest in infant hygiene reflected broader trends at the turn of the century, as reformers from coast to coast began to embrace the doctrine of “progressive maternalism.”

17 According to Molly Ladd-Taylor, progressive maternalists occupied the middle ground between feminists and proponents of sentimental motherhood. Whereas the former waged a fierce battle for sex equality on the streets and in the halls of Congress, the latter saw no place for women outside the home. Progressive maternalists combined and tempered these 2 perspectives, asserting that the biological and social experience of motherhood endowed women with a heightened sense of moral duty that was beneficial to both family and nation. They politicized maternity by arguing that female citizens, who carried the well-being of future generations in their wombs, were entitled to suffrage as well as leadership roles in society and government.

This logic was employed by suffragettes who asserted that New Zealand’s low infant mortality rate was a direct result of more than 20 years of female enfranchisement. One leaflet issued by the National Woman Suffrage Publishing Company, for instance, portrayed a toddler looking warily at a door that was barely ajar and swarming with deadly microbes. The accompanying caption read: “I wish my mother had a vote—to keep the germs away.”

18 Linking the language of bacteriology and biology, progressive maternalists charted an agenda for the country in which national strength, better babies, and the political visibility of women went hand in hand.

On a national scale, the ethos of progressive maternalism was best exemplified by the US Children’s Bureau. Established in 1912 by Progressives long committed to immigrant and infant welfare, the Children’s Bureau was the first government agency directed by a woman, Julia Lathrop, who in 1921 was succeeded by Grace Abbott. Both were veterans of Chicago’s Hull House, one of the first immigrant settlement homes in the United States.

19 Immediately after taking charge of the Children’s Bureau, Lathrop settled on the reduction of infant mortality as the agency’s cardinal objective. In 1910, between 100 and 200 of every 1000 infants born in the United States perished, a figure that had been lowered discernibly since 1900 but still exceeded rates in New Zealand and a handful of European countries.

20Although the Bureau interpreted the manifold problems of children through the prism of public health and medicine, few members of its staff were physicians. The preliminary composition and outlook of the bureau were altered substantially over time, however, as doctors—many of whom were male—began to claim jurisdiction over most arenas of children’s health. One of the historical ironies is that by professionalizing infant and maternal welfare and urging mothers to consult private pediatricians, the Children’s Bureau enhanced the authority of doctors and bolstered the notion that private primary care was the most creditable mode of child health.

21 The development of better baby work in Indiana emulated this pattern, arising in large part from a groundswell of women’s volunteerism in the first decade of the 20th century but thoroughly controlled by male pediatricians by the mid 1930s. Much to her dismay, Schweitzer, a physician and a progressive maternalist, paved the way for this gendered transfer of power in the Hoosier heartland.

Just 2 years after its founding, the Children’s Bureau initiated what would blossom into a fruitful relationship with the Indiana State Board of Health when it dispatched its designated exhibit expert, Dr Anne Louise Strong, to Indianapolis to preside over an upcoming child welfare display.22 Two years later, in January 1916, the Children’s Bureau returned to Indiana. This time, however, the agency came for 4 months, to lay the foundations for a comprehensive infant and maternal hygiene program. During the second decade of the 20th century, the Children’s Bureau rotated its field agents throughout the country to galvanize child welfare initiatives.23 To rural Indiana, it sent Florence Brown Sherbon, a Kansas physician who in the 1920s became a member of the American Eugenics Society and one of the most vocal exponents of “fitter families” contests at agricultural fairs.24 She was later joined by Mary Mills West, author of the acclaimed Children’s Bureau tracts Infant Care and Prenatal Care, and Elizabeth Moore, who had helped Strong with the child welfare exhibit less than 2 years earlier.

25During the winter and spring of 1916, Sherbon, Moore, and West preached the gospel of child saving throughout Indiana. In places often inaccessible by rail or asphalt, they showed movies; handed out pamphlets; examined the eyes, ears, and mouths of children; illustrated infant feeding techniques; and dispensed scales of normal development and nutrition charts, all the while compiling birth and death statistics.

26 Following on the heels of American Farm Bureau agents, who had begun canvassing the countryside at the turn of the century to further modern agriculture, Sherbon and her team used the language of crops and breeding to persuade Hoosiers to apply scientific knowledge to the procreation and bringing up of children.

27 They implored farmers to shed superstition for science, vowing that if they heeded their instructions about milk sterilization, nourishment, and parturition, their sons and daughters would “grow up strong and well.”


Every child has the inalienable right to be born free from disease, free from deformity and with pure blood in its veins and arteries.

Every child has the inalienable right to be loved; to have its individuality respected; to be trained wisely in mind, body, and soul; to be protected from disease, from evil influences and evil persons; and to have a fair chance. In a word, to be brought up in the fear and admonition of the Lord.

That state is delinquent which does not ceaselessly strive to secure these inalienable rights to its children.

The crux of the Children’s Bureau mission in Indiana, however, was the “babies’ health conferences” Sherbon and her colleagues orchestrated in towns and cities such as Lagrange, Butler, Kendalville, Petersburg, and Washington. According to the informational brochure, the aim of these gatherings was to “show the physical condition of the children examined and indicate the points at which their health and vigor may be improved by the efforts of the parents.”

29 Spending 4 days in each locale, bureau representatives inspected children younger than 6 years and exposed Hoosiers to films, written materials, and visual aids.

30Aside from ushering in innovative notions about child rearing, one of the topmost goals of these conferences was to expedite the continuation of better baby work in Indiana. In every town on their itinerary, Sherbon and her team scrutinized the feasibility of follow-up efforts among local women’s clubs and medical groups, many of which had independently begun grassroots campaigns.


These activities sparked moderate interest in child hygiene but certainly did not bring about the sweeping program envisioned by the Children’s Bureau. The seeds for a more far-reaching plan were planted at the babies’ health conference held in conjunction with Indiana University’s Extension University in Bloomington in March 1916.

31Sherbon and her colleagues were convinced that the movement would be guaranteed “a much better chance for permanent survival” if it were housed in a state division, not scattered among local groups. Hence, at that meeting they broached the possibilities for such a public health unit with John N. Hurty, director of the Indiana State Board of Health from 1896 to 1922 and an ardent eugenicist and outspoken supporter of the sterilization and marriage laws.

32Not surprisingly, given his concerns with race betterment and child saving, Hurty responded enthusiastically and, in spite of an immediate lack of funds, conveyed his willingness to submit a proposal in the next legislative cycle.

33Three years after these conversations and the Children’s Bureau babies’ health conferences, the Indiana State Board of Health’s Division of the Child and Infant Hygiene was created and Schweitzer was appointed its director.

34Schweitzer’s relationship with Hurty and the Board of Health began in 1906, when she was hired as an assistant bacteriologist at the state laboratory. Born in 1873 in the northern town of Lagrange, Schweitzer grew up on a farm where her Scottish-Irish mother and German father raised mint and purebred poultry. After attending Lima High School, she left Indiana to obtain her baccalaureate at Michigan State Normal College, returning permanently in 1902 to pursue her medical degree at Indiana Medical College.

While in school, Schweitzer conducted bacteriological studies at the state laboratory, concentrating on the prevalence and morbidity of children’s epidemics such as measles, diphtheria, and typhoid.35 Inspired by ideas of progressive maternalism and Hurty’s principles of racial uplift, Schweitzer soon became Indiana’s leading champion of infant hygiene, and by the second decade of the 20th century she was spearheading child welfare projects. In 1916, for example, she represented the State Board of Health at the Children’s Bureau conference in her hometown of Lagrange, delivering 2 talks titled “Personal Hygiene” and “Sanitation in the Home.”36

In 1918 she was elected chairwoman of the Indiana branch of the American Association for the Study and Prevention of Infant Mortality.37 That same year she authored a survey of infant mortality in Gary on special assignment for the Children’s Bureau. In the fall of 1918 she traveled to the South to realize a similar investigation but soon was attending to the crisis engendered by the influenza outbreak. As she was vacating her temporary post in Georgia, Schweitzer received word of Hurty’s invitation to become director of the Division of Infant and Child Hygiene.38

When the division’s starting appropriation of $10 000 became available in October 1919, Schweitzer and her staff of 3—a nurse, a chauffeur, and a stenographer—swung into action.

39 In a detailed letter, Hurty boasted to Lathrop about the extensive and trailblazing endeavors of Schweitzer and her underlings. Hurty explained that Schweitzer was “carrying the news into the rural regions beyond the railways” and venturing “deep into the country” to find areas that had scarcely been reached by health officials or the Indiana Mothers’ Baby Book. Above all, Hurty was proud of the division’s child mobile, a Dodge truck outfitted with “a Delco electric apparatus” that lit up “country school houses or churches” and activated the “stereopticon and moving picture machine.”

In most towns, Schweitzer’s entrance behind the wheel of the mobile—customarily adorned with flags—was a festive event always “announced by a bugle.” In town after town the routine was repeated: “Mothers are invited to bring their babies for physical examination. Advice and circulars are given to them, and then the Division moves on to the next stand, which as said, is always advertised beforehand.”

40As she launched Indiana’s better baby movement, Schweitzer reenergized the mission of the Children’s Bureau. Crisscrossing Indiana from county to county, Schweitzer and her corps handed out pamphlets, mounted exhibits, delivered lectures, screened films, and demonstrated techniques for nursing and preparing formula. Each month, Schweitzer personally scrutinized the health of hundreds of children—assessing their teeth, height, weight, vision, hearing, tonsils, adenoids, possible infections, defects, eating habits, hours of sleep, access to fresh air, and home surroundings.

41Schweitzer’s 1920 annual report revealed that the division had convened conferences in 27 counties, examined 8000 children, and presented lectures or films in 290 towns. Continually striving for lay involvement, the division had collaborated with 476 local, 53 state, and 63 national organizations on joint projects.

42 Furthermore, by 1921, many Indiana mothers, worried about the health of their babies, had sent “Dear Dr Schweitzer” letters to the division’s headquarters at the State House.

43If the division grew steadily in the early 1920s, it expanded exponentially after the passage of the federal Maternity and Infancy, or Sheppard–Towner, Act. Although the Indiana State Medical Associationlike its parent the American Medical Association—loudly opposed Sheppard–Towner and labeled it intrusive state medicine, Hurty’s national prestige and Indiana’s entrenched eugenic and public health programs guaranteed endorsement of the necessary “enabling legislation” by the state assembly.

44 With a budget 3 times her original one, in 1923 Schweitzer substantially broadened and reconfigured the division. She hired additional nurses and assistants, amplified the radius of the child health conferences, founded maternal and infancy centers, augmented public nursing efforts, and realized increasingly ambitious statistical and clinical studies.

45 As in similar agencies across the country, the bulk of her staff were female nonphysicians, an arrangement that provoked the ire of a vocal segment of Indiana’s predominantly male medical establishment.

During this period Schweitzer initiated mothers’ classes to teach pregnant women the fundamentals of prenatal and baby care.

46 In addition to inculcating scientific motherhood and basic precepts of public hygiene, these courses also furnished a venue for Schweitzer to expound on the virtues of Indiana’s eugenic marriage and sterilization laws, which she believed ensured the robustness of Hoosier babies.

47 In 1925, 16 649 women—more than 50% of all attendees nationwide—took mothers’ classes in Indiana under the aegis of the Division of Infant and Child Hygiene.

48That same year, Schweitzer wrote to the Children’s Bureau, “[O]ur work is growing so fast that it is difficult to plan so far ahead.”

49 By 1926, the division’s operating funds had climbed to $60 000 and it counted more than 20 full-time and temporary employees.

50 Moreover, according to the census, Indiana’s infant mortality rates had fallen to the fourth lowest in the country, a decrease due to several intertwined factors, including the division’s campaigns.

51After one decade, the division had examined the health of 77 584 children, enrolled 55 171 mothers in instructional classes, shown health films to 606 364 viewers, and reached almost half of the state’s population of 3 million through the distribution of 1 216 577 pamphlets.

52Schweitzer’s crusade indubitably altered attitudes about health, maternity, and childhood in Indiana. In Muncie, for example, the Lynds found that mothers were voracious readers of pamphlets and installment books on prenatal and infant care, always on the lookout for “every available resource for help in training their children.”

53Moreover, according to the Lynds, most Muncie parents readily embraced the latest pediatric advice.Some, however, were bewildered by this avalanche of new instructional materials and were averse to renouncing tried and true practices that had been handed down from generation to generation through female relatives. Like the Children’s Bureau during its 1916 tour of Indiana, since 1919 the Division of Infant and Child Hygiene had sought to persuade inhabitants of Muncie and the rest of Indiana of the imperative of the rules of scientific motherhood and child rearing. From the perspective of Schweitzer and other reformers, the integrity of Hoosier health and citizenship depended the mass adaptation of infant and maternal hygiene. As Schweitzer was fond of saying, only this would enable Indiana to become a good parent.

54Go to:


The centerpiece of Schweitzer’s quest to groom Indiana into an enlightened guardian of Hoosier children were the better babies contests, inaugurated in 1920 and, until their discontinuation in 1932, one of the most popular events at the state fair. The significance of the contests was layered and complex. As manifestations of the state fair in miniature, each year the better babies contest served as a venue for Hoosiers to negotiate past and present, nostalgia and modernity.

55 They acquainted Indianans with the most up-to-date opinions of child specialists, thereby reinforcing emergent pediatric norms and imbuing university-trained experts with ultimate authority over matters pertaining to the biology, physiology, and psychology of children.

The contests also commercialized this process, through advertising in and sponsorship by the Indianapolis News, by soliciting patronage from businesses such as the Hoosier Fence Company and the Weber Milk Company, and by fostering a competitive climate in which the winner received cash prizes and a trophy.

56 Finally, while the contests bolstered professionalized child medicine and brand name consumerism, they simultaneously depicted babyhood as a time of innocence and purity that was under assault by 20th-century urbanization and industrialization.

57Moreover, by excluding African American children, the contests reinforced patterns of segregation in Indiana and promoted the idea that only White babies could achieve perfection and symbolize the Hoosier state.

58 Schweitzer reportedly ordained the contest “a school of education in eugenics” and countenanced the use of categories that made “some allowance for familial and racial types.”59 More implicitly than overtly, she furthered Indiana’s racial divisions as she strove to improve the overall health of Hoosier children and modernize rural mothers through science.

Despite their immense popularity at the state fair, better babies contests did not originate in Indiana. Adumbrated by 19th-century beauty pageants, the contests began at the Iowa State Fair in 1911 when clubwoman Mary T. Watts asked, “You are raising better cattle, better horses, and better hogs, why don’t you raise better babies?”60To judge infants like livestock, Watts and another rural reformer, Margaret Clark, devised scorecards that tallied level of physical health, anthropometric traits, and mental development. Soon thereafter, the widely read magazineWoman’s Home Companion embarked on its Better Baby Campaign by sending one of its editors, Anna Steese Richardson, to Colorado to advance the contests.61 Soon they were all the rage, and by 1914, Woman’s Home Companion claimed “that contests had been held in every state except West Virginia, New Hamsphire, and Utah, and that more than 100 000 children had been examined.”62

With its field workers already dispersed around the country taking part in local infant hygiene efforts, the Children’s Bureau became involved in the contests as well. Lathrop, however, while supporting the educational aspect of the contests, was disturbed by the competitiveness they fostered, the commercialism they endorsed, and their glaring lack of a standardized scoring system. Thus, she arranged for the Bureau to join forces with the American Medical Association to develop a scorecard acceptable to the pediatric establishment and also began to sponsor an alternative, the children’s health conferences, which contained most of the elements of the better babies contests without numerical rankings. Indeed, during Sherbon’s reconnoitering of Indiana in 1916, she and her colleagues complained in several towns about crowded, confusing, and ill-managed contests that had been inspired by Woman’s Home Companion.63 They hoped that the children’s health conference would “successfully demonstrate a different method.”64

Given her close ties to the Children’s Bureau, Schweitzer was initially reluctant to incorporate better babies contests into her division’s activities. Hence in 1920, when Charles F. Kennedy, then secretary of the State Board of Agriculture, proposed that she oversee a contest at the state fair that year, she evinced skepticism. Kennedy, who had conducted a similar contest in Grand Rapids, Mich, was convinced it would be a wonderful addition to the fair.

65 Schweitzer was soon swayed by Kennedy’s petition and in 1920 presided over one of the fair’s most crowd-pleasing features.

66 Within no time, she was a fervent defender of the contests, justifying them as completely professional endeavors, guided by the firm principles of pediatrics and child psychology. Explaining her decision to avidly back the contests at the state fair, Schweitzer wrote to Dr. Talafierro Clark of the US Public Health Service, “I had numerous consultations with men skilled in pediatrics and specialists” as “we needed to place the contest on as high a plane as possible, in order to free it as near as could be from objectionable features.”

67  Schweitzer consistently distinguished the state fair contest from its makeshift and unregulated imitations in small rural towns and villages. Schweitzer wanted all of Indiana’s baby contests to be directed solely by the division and regularly pleaded with rural reformers to erect an alternative, the baby rest tent, where toddlers would be shielded from dust, crowds, possible exploitation, and the disappointment of losing in an amateur competition.

68 To meet the benchmark of professionalism, she used a scorecard based directly on the template formulated by the American Medical Association and the Children’s Bureau.

69By the mid-1920s, Schweitzer was showcasing the better babies contests on the radio and in articles in theMonthly Bulletin of the ISBH and the Hub of the Universe. She contended that the value of the contests resided in the fact that they “set the best standards of health before the parents that they may compare these with the actual condition of their child.”

70 For the most part, Schweitzer believed that better babies contests provided a level playing field on which infants could be judged according on their own merits.

While Schweitzer certainly viewed the contests as a facet of a more extensive race betterment project, she alleged that the “gates of heredity” were closed after the baby left the womb. It was essential to first restrict birth to only the most fit, through marriage and sterilization laws, and then create only the most desirable children through scientific child rearing and motherhood. Reflecting her particular blend of eugenics and public health, Schweitzer told one Muncie reformer, “You can not make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, neither can we make a citizen out of an idiot or any person who is not well born.”71


Schweitzer frequently extolled the benefits of the contests, claiming, for example, that the lessons taught by the contests had helped to lower the percentage of underweight contestant babies from 10% in 1920 to 2% in 1929.72 To publicize this annual September event, she wrote announcements, published fact sheets, and explained scoring procedures in laborious detail.

73 With each passing year, the contests became more popular among Indianans. In 1920, for example, 78 babies were examined; by 1925 this number had risen more than 10-fold, to 885, and in 1930 when 1301 young entrants were counted, enthusiasm was so overwhelming that Schweitzer opted to cap the number of entrants at 1200 the following year.

74In 1923 the Indianapolis News began to sponsor the contest, giving it a big boost; not only did the paper devote more space to articles, but it also began to print full-length pages with individual photos of hundreds of contestant babies whose mothers had sent in their registration forms by the deadline.

75 In 1924 the contest grounds were enlarged when a window-paneled Better Babies Building was erected, thanks to a $10 000 donation from J. E. Oliver of Oliver Chilled Plow Works. This new edifice housed exhibits, examinations of noncontestant babies, and demonstrations.

76 In 1927, the contests themselves were moved from a partition of the Woman’s Building, where they had been held faithfully since 1920, to a brand-new Better Babies Contest Building. Constructed as part of the state fair’s Diamond Jubilee, this building was financed by a special $5000 appropriation from the State Board of Agriculture and the legislature

.77As the contest grew under Schweitzer’s commanding presence, it also became more streamlined and efficient. For the week-long event, she contracted a general pediatrician—almost always Dr James C. Carter—as well as an optometrist, an otorhinolaryngologist, and several extra nurses and orderlies. In addition, assistance was provided by the Girl and Boy Scouts, who escorted mothers from station to station.

The contest procedure was well honed. Before the event began, the registered infants were divided into groups based on age (12–24 months or 24–36 months), sex, and place of residence. Those categorized as city babies lived in places with 10 000 inhabitants or more; the others were considered rural. With their children classified, parents—usually mothers—arrived at the better babies complex at the state fair at a designated time. As the mothers entered the building they submitted their enrollment form to a female attendant, who recorded the name of the mother and child. Then the baby was whisked away to the next booth, where its overall health history was taken by a nurse.

Mental tests—distinct for each age group—followed. Psychologists observed whether the children could stand, walk, and speak; how they manipulated blocks and balls; and how they responded to questions such as “How does the doggie do?” and “Who is the baby in the mirror?”78 Mental tests completed, the babies were undressed and their clothes placed in a paper bag with an identifying number. Identically robed in flannel togas, the babies were weighed and measured. From here each baby passed from the optometrist to the general pediatrician and finally to the otorhinolaryngologist. After being weighed and measured a second time, each baby was dressed in his or her own clothing and bedecked with a bronze medal on a blue ribbon, courtesy of the Indianapolis News.

Scores were calculated along the way. From a starting score of 1000, deductions were calculated for a wide host of physical defects including unevenness of the head, scaly skin, ill deportment, delayed teething, abnormal ear size or shape, and enlarged glands. Slow reactions to the mental tests or perceived lack of muscular coordination lowered a child’s score, as did deviations from the national standards for height and weight (based on age) and weight-to-height ratio. Tabulated results from the contests indicate that Schweitzer instructed her team to subtract the most infinitesimal of figures for each defect—most likely to maintain high results for every baby, thus diluting the rivalrous nature of the contests. The victor generally scored above 990; Alma Louise Strohmeyer, a 1-year-old Indianapolis girl, triumphed with 999.92813 points in 1923.79

In spite of their professed formality and orderliness, the contests were both crowded and noisy. In 1928, for example, 67 000 people streamed through the better babies complex, watching the psychological tests, spending time at the rest tent and nursery, and taking in the infant and maternal care dioramas.

80 As thousands made their way through the contest rooms, babies howled as they were unclothed, squealed when prodded by the stethoscope, or cooed delightedly when given their blue ribbon.

81 In 1925, the News described the chaos as a packed room filled to overflowing with the “noisy accompaniment of more than 200 child voices. The perfection of the lungs of the babies examined Monday could scarcely be doubted, and if there are not future opera singers and booming voiced orators of the group, many of the attendants and onlookers are exceedingly poor prophets.”

82While the impact of the contests is difficult to gauge, it is not unreasonable to accept Schweitzer’s contention that they played a part in effectively reducing infant mortality rates and prompting mothers to safeguard against the bacterial infection of milk and food. The contests also provided a platform for the commercialization of public health as well as the incorporation of the “better baby” into advertising—a newborn icon that figured regularly in the 1920s, selling products such as condensed milk and infant formula.

Schweitzer’s correspondence, furthermore, reveals that not only did many Hoosiers regularly send her general inquiries about child rearing, but many mothers—of varying degrees of literacy—were concerned enough about their children’s contest scores to contact the division.

In 1922 one parent wrote to Schweitzer anxious to know her daughter’s “failing points” and to find out “in what way she failed a perfect score.”

83 That same year, Schweitzer received a letter from another set of fretful parents: “We are so anxious to know her defects and in what way she was lacking.”

84  These and numerous additional letters demonstrate the extent to which Indianans from every inch of the state viewed Schweitzer as a trusted expert who could direct, or at least make recommendations about, local child-saving events. They also suggest that for those who attended the division’s many conferences, workshops, and classes, the line between public health and eugenics was nebulous or nonexistent.

On one hand, Schweitzer implored Hoosiers to adhere to the state’s marriage laws and spoke out consistently in favor of the state’s sterilization restrictions, which were based on a Mendelian understanding of hereditary transmission.

On the other, she was just as beholden to the gospels of private hygiene, pure milk, vaccination programs, and clean air and sunshine.

For Schweitzer and hundreds of other reformers, particularly the progressive maternalists, these multiple and seemingly paradoxical aspects of infant welfare and scientific motherhood coexisted quite comfortably on a wide continuum of race betterment.


In 1932 the last better babies contest was held, attracting thousands of spectators. In the early 1930s, the Depression, the resentment of Indiana’s male pediatricians, and the election of new Democratic administration converged, setting the stage for the end of the Division of Infant and Child Hygiene. Intent on centralizing his New Deal plan and distancing himself from his Republican predecessors, in 1933 Governor Paul V. McNutt abruptly dismissed Schweitzer and transferred the newly named Department of Child Health and Maternal Welfare to the Indiana University School of Medicine.

Of the division’s more than 20 employees, only Dr James C. Carter—the pediatrician Schweitzer hired each year to examine better babies—was retained to serve on a committee charged with designing a new blueprint for child welfare in Indiana.

85 None of the female physicians or nurses who had so faithfully staffed Schweitzer’s division for more than a decade were asked to join McNutt’s revamped department, which emphasized clinical pediatric teaching instead of hands-on infant and maternal hygiene projects. Nonetheless, Schweitzer’s legacy was felt in 1936 when McNutt oversaw the passage of legislation to receive Title V funds through the Social Security Act and partially revived the division. A Bureau of Maternal and Child Health, both federally and state financed in a manner akin to Sheppard–Towner, was founded, and a male physician closely affiliated with the Indiana State Medical Association was named its director.

86 Many historians of 20th-century America conceptualize public health and eugenics as antithetical movements separated by the conceptual gulf between environment and heredity.

87 Schweitzer’s work in Indiana, and better babies contests across the country more generally, illustrate that race betterment was an expansive rubric with a great deal of space for overlapping ideas and practices. The Division of Infant and Child Hygiene’s experiment demonstrates the active leadership of female reformers in infant and maternal welfare in the 1920s as well as the problematic racial and class implications of making babies better in Indiana.

Figure 1

Contestants (probably winners) from the 1927 Better Babies Contest, accompanied by Division of Infant and Child Hygiene nurses. (Photo courtesy of the Indiana State Archives, Indiana Commission on Public Records.)

Figure 2

Baby Contest Building and spectators, Indiana State Fair, 1929 (Photo courtesy of the Indiana State Archives, Indiana Commission on Public Records.)

Figure 3

Spectators watching the various testing and measurement tables at the 1930 contest. (Photo courtesy of the Indiana State Archives, Indiana Commission on Public Records.)


Research for this article was greatly facilitated by the expertise and good cheer of Vicki Casteel of the Indiana State Archives. I would like to thank the 4 anonymous reviewers who offered helpful and incisive criticism, as well as the following individuals for their insights and historical knowledge: Howard Markel, Janet Tarolli, and James Madison.


Peer Reviewed


1. “Hopeful Mothers and Fathers Bring Children to Baby Contest,” Indianapolis News, 4 September 1929, 1, 14.
2. See Hub of the Universe, Monthly Bulletin of the Indiana State Board of Health (ISBH), and theIndianapolis News, especially editorials from 1920 through 1932.
3. See “Division of Infant and Child Hygiene, Monthly Report, September 1932,” Monthly Bulletin of the ISBH35 (1932): 154–155.
4. Thurman B. Rice, The Hoosier Health Officer: A Biography of Dr. John N. Hurty and the History of the Indiana State Board of Health to 1925 (Indianapolis: np, 1946), 316.
5. James H. Madison, Indiana Through Tradition and Change: A History of the Hoosier State and its People, 1920–1945 (Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society, 1982), 322. Rates from 1910 to 1925 listed in “State Fair Better Babies Demonstrations,” 11-16-1, Central File (CF) 1925–28, Record Group (RG) 102, United States Children’s Bureau (CB), National Archives at College Park (NACP). On national infant mortality rates, which averaged about 1% higher than those in Indiana, see Dorothy Pawluch, The New Pediatrics: A Profession in Transition (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1996).
6. For a longer discussion of Schweitzer and her campaign that contains a more developed section on the history of Indiana, see Alexandra Minna Stern, “Better Babies Contests at the Indiana State Fair: Child Health, Scientific Motherhood, and Eugenics in the Midwest, 1920–1935,” in Formative Years: Children’s Health in the United States, 1880–2000, ed. Alexandra Minna Stern and Howard Markel (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002): 121–152.
7. Madison, Indiana Through Tradition and Change, 309.
8. See, for example, “1917 Conference on Mental Health,” Mental Defectives Files, Indiana State Archives (ISA).
9. See Marilyn Irvin Holt, Linoleum, Better Babies, and the Modern Farm Woman, 1890–1930 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1995), chap 4, and Lynne Curry, Modern Mothers in the Heartland: Gender, Health, and Progress in Illinois, 1900–1930 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1999): 101–107.
10. See Richard A. Meckel, Save the Babies: American Public Health Reform and the Prevention of Infant Mortality, 1850–1929 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998).
11. Madison, Indiana through Tradition and Change, chap 1. Also see John Bartlow Martin, Indiana: An Interpretation (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992 [1947]).
12. See Howard Markel, “For the Welfare of Children: The Origins of the Relationship Between US Public Health Workers and Pediatricians,” American Journal of Public Health 90 (June 2000): 893–899. [PMC free article][PubMed]
13. Robert S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd, Middletown: A Study in Modern American Culture (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1957 [1929]).
14. This article was inspired by the work of Martin S. Pernick, one of the few historians of medicine to trace the overlaps between public health and eugenics. See Pernick, “Eugenics and Public Health in American History,”American Journal of Public Health 87 (1997): 1767–1772. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
15. Indiana Mothers’ Baby Book, 2nd ed. (Indianapolis: Indiana State Board of Health, 1920).
16. See Baby Book and Hurty to Children’s Bureau, 18 June 1920, 4-15-2-16, CF 1914-1920, RG 102, CB, NACP.
17. See Molly Ladd-Taylor, Mother-Work: Women, Child Welfare, and the State, 1890–1930 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994); and Molly Ladd-Taylor, ed., Raising a Baby the Government Way: Mothers’ Letters to the Children’s Bureau, 1915–1932 (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1986). Also see Gwendolyn Mink, The Wages of Motherhood: Inequality in the Welfare State, 1917–1942 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995) and Seth Koven and Sonya Michel, eds., Mothers of a New World: Maternalist Politics and the Origins of Welfare States (New York: Routledge, 1993).
18. “Better Babies” (New York: National Woman Suffrage Publishing Company, 1916).
19. See Kriste Lindenmeyer, “Right to Childhood”: The U.S. Children’s Bureau and Child Welfare, 1912–46(Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997); Ladd-Taylor, Mother-Work and Mothers’ Letters.
20. Lindemeyer, “Right to Childhood,” 43–45.
21. See Meckel, Save the Babies; Lindemeyer, “Right to Childhood”; and Jeffrey P. Baker, “Women and the Invention of Well Child Care” Pediatrics 94 (1994): 527–531. [PubMed]
22. See King to Lathrop, 15 October 1914; Lathrop to King, 17 October 1914; King to Lathrop, 25 November 1914; King to Lathrop, 15 January 1915; 8-1-4-2-2, CF 1914–20, RG 102, CB, NACP.
23. See Lindenmeyer, “Right to Childhood” and Ladd-Taylor, Mother-Work.
24. On Sherbon’s role in the fitter families contests, see “Kansas Free Fair Report,” Box 4, Ms 77, Papers of the Eugenics Records Office (ERO), American Philosophical Society Library, Philadelphia. For an excellent analysis of Sherbon and the fitter families contests see Laura LeeAnn Lovett, “Conceiving the Future: Nostalgic Modernism, Reproduction, and the Family in the United States, 1890–1930” (PhD diss, University of California, Berkeley, 1998).
25. See West to Sherbon, 26 February 1916, and Lathrop to West, 15 February 1916, 4-11-1-5, CF 1914–20, RG 102, CB, NACP.
26. See letters and reports from January to April 1916 in file 4-11-1-5, CF 1914–20, RG 102, CB, NACP.
27. See Holt, Linoleum, chap 1 and 4.
28. “Indiana II,” 5 January 1916, 4-11-1-4, CF 1914–20, RG 102, CB, NACP.
29. “Babies’ Health Conferences,” 4-11-1-5, CF 1914–20, RG 102, CB, NACP.
30. Ibid. Sherbon used a scorecard that listed the names of the baby and his or her parents, sex, weight, breast-feeding history, illnesses, feeding regime, and the condition of 20 bodily organs including eyes, glands, liver, and external genitalia. See “Children’s Health Conference,” 4-11-1-5, CF 1914–20, RG 102, CB, NACP.
31. “Community Institute and Babies’ Health Conference,” 15–18 February 1916, 4-11-1-5, CF 1914–20, RG 102, CB, NACP.
32. Grace L. Meigs, director of the Child Hygiene Division, Children’s Bureau, to Sherbon, 10 March 1916, 4-11-1-5, CF 1914–20, RG 102, CB, NACP.
33. Sherbon to Meigs, 19 March 1916, and Meigs to Sherbon, 22 March 1916, 4-11-1-5, CF 1914–20, RG 102, CB, NACP.
34. Hurty to Lathrop, 8 May 1919, 4-15-2-16, CF 1914–20, RG 102, NACP. Reflecting the continual growth of Hurty’s public health and race betterment, 3 sister divisions—Rural Hygiene, Tuberculosis, and Venereal Diseases—were created and granted substantial appropriations in the same legislative session as the Division of Infant and Child Hygiene (see Hurty to Mr Carol Fleming, US Department of Labor, 27 June 1919, 4-15-2-16, CF 1914–20, RG 102, CB, NACP).
35. For biographical information on Schweitzer, see “Indiana’s Work in Child Hygiene,” Indiana Business Woman 4 (1921): 15; “Former County Girl Prominent as Child Hygiene Director,” Lagrange Standard, 1 August 1929, np; untitled and undated biography, Papers of the Division of Infant and Child Hygiene (DICH), ISA. The division’s collection is uncatalogued and unprocessed, thus no folders or box numbers are cited. Also see Rice, Hoosier Health Officer, chap 78, and “Ada Schweitzer, Child Health Expert, Dead,” Indianapolis Star, 2 June 1951.
36. “Community Institute and Babies’ Health Conference,” 15–18 February 1916, 4-11-1-5, CF 1914–20, RG 102, CB, NACP.
37. See Schweitzer to Lathrop, 5 September 1918, 9-1-2-3, CF 1914–20, RG 102, CB, NACP.
38. Rude to Schweitzer, 12 December 1918, 4-15-2-16, CF 1914–20, RG 102, CB, NACP.
39. Hurty to Lathrop, 8 May 1919, 4-15-2-16, CF 1914–20, RG 102, CB, NACP.
40. Hurty to Children’s Bureau, 18 June 1920. Also see “Indiana Progress,” nd, 4-15-2-16, CF 1914–20, RG 102, CB, NACP
41. “Report of the Division of Infant and Child Hygiene, Indiana State Board of Health, for the Year ending September 30, 1920,” 4-11-1-3 (16), CF 1921–24, RG 102, CB, NACP. For a complete overview of Schweitzer’s work, month by month, see “Reports of the Division of Infant and Child Hygiene, Indiana State Board of Health,” Monthly Bulletin of the ISBH, 1920–1933.
42. “Annual Report of the Division of Infant and Child Hygiene, Indiana State Board of Health For the Year Ending September 30, 1921,” 4-11-1-3, CF 1921–24, RG 102, CB, NACP.
43. The papers of the division include dozens of letters from mothers and community leaders. See, for example, Schweitzer to Mr George B. Lockwood, 17 March 1916; Mrs Charles N. Lindley to Schweitzer, 9 July 1920; Schweitzer to Dr Jos. L. Allen, 22 May 1920, DICH, ISA.
44. See Rice, Hoosier Health Officer, and Rice, “History of the Indiana State Board of Health.”
45. See “Report of the Division of Infant and Child Hygiene,” Monthly Bulletin of the ISBH 26 (1923): 39–40; “Indiana State Board of Health, Division, Infant and Child Hygiene, Ordinance, Graf, Rules,” 11-16-1, CF 1921–24, RG 102, CB, NACP.
46. “Supplementary Report for Information Concerning Plans for the Promotion of Maternal and Infant Welfare,” 11-16-1, CF 1921–24.
47. “Abstract of Lectures for Mothers’ Classes,” 11-16-1, CF 1925–28, RG 102, CB, NACP; “Narrative Report of Maternity and Infancy Staff No. 2 for month ending March 31, 1924 by Dr. Wilhelmina Jongewaard, Director,” Monthly Bulletin of the ISBH 27 (1924): 57–59. See Rima D. Apple, “Constructing Mothers: Scientific Motherhood in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries,” in Mothers and Motherhood: Readings in American History, ed. Rima D. Apple and Janet Golden (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1997): 90–110.
48. According to the Children’s Bureau, the number of women who attended mothers’ classes nationwide was 31 529. See “Indiana’s Work under the Maternity and Infancy Law during 1925,” Monthly Bulletin of the Indiana State Board of Health 29 (1926): 136–138.
49. Schweitzer to Florence E. Kraker, associate director, Maternal and Infant Hygiene, CB, 21 January 1925, 11-16-1, CF 1925–28, RG 102, CB, NACP.
50. “Child Hygiene Division, Estimate Budget for 1925, 1926, and 1927,” 11-16-1, CF 1925–28, RG 102, CB, NACP.
51. Schweitzer to Haines, 28 September 1926, 11-16-1, CF 1925–28, RG 102, CB, NACP.
52. “A Survey of Ten Years’ Child Hygiene Work in Indiana,” Monthly Bulletin of the ISBH 32 (1929): 173–174.
53. Lynd and Lynd, Middletown, 150.
54. Schweitzer, “Is Indiana a Good Parent,” Hub of the Universe 6, no. 5 (August 1928): 1.
55. For an excellent discussion of this tension, see Lovett, “Conceiving the Future.”
56. See “The Better Babies,” Monthly Bulletin of the ISBH 31 (1928): 144–145.
57. Schweitzer expressed this sentiment in many of her writings. See, for example, “Child Environment” (ca 1929), DICH, ISA.
58. The archival materials I consulted indicate that the contests were segregated in practice but not on paper. I found several scattered mentions of Schweitzer’s attending segregated “Negro” better baby contests in Indianapolis at which she weighed and measured babies, but no specific details were given.
59. Paul Miner, Indiana’s Best! An Illustrated Celebration of the Indiana State Fairgrounds, 1852–1992(Indianapolis: Indiana State Fair Commission, 1992,) 128–130.
60. Watts to Schweitzer, 17 June 1925, DICH, ISA. See Annette K. Vance Dorey, Better Baby Contests: The Scientific Quest for Perfect Childhood Health in the Early Twentieth Century (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 1999). Dorey found that Louisiana claimed to be the originator of the better babies contest, holding the first one in 1908. Dorey’s study is exceedingly useful and explores many dimensions of the contests. One of its shortcomings, however, is Dorey’s insistence that the contests virtually disappeared after World War I.
61. See Alisa Klaus, “Every Child a Lion:The Origins of Maternal and Infant Health Policy in the United States and France, 1890–1920 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993): 138–157. Also see Anna Steese Richardson, Better Babies and Their Care (New York: Frederick A. Stokes, 1914), an advice manual with a prologue outlining her involvement in better babies contests.
62. Ibid, 144.
63. Meigs to Sherbon, 3 February 1916; Sherbon to Meigs, 27 January 1916; 4-11-1-5, CF 1914–20, RG 102, CB, NACP.
64. Ibid.
65. Kennedy to Schweitzer, 5 April 1920, DICH, ISA; “Indiana State Fair Better Babies Activities,” Monthly Bulletin of the ISBH 30 (1927): 136–140.
66. Miner, Indiana’s Best, 129–130.
67. Schweitzer to Clark, 22 October 1922, DICH, ISA.
68. Ibid; Schweitzer to Mrs J.E. Pepple, 26 June 1923; Schweitzer to Miss E. Melville, 5 July, 1923; DICH, ISA.
69. See Schweitzer to Mrs A.F. Bentley, 18 June and 20 June 1923, DICH, ISA.
70. Schweitzer, “Why Have a Baby Contest?” Monthly Bulletin of the ISBH 31 (1928), 125.
71. Schweitzer to Mr George B. Lockwood, 20 March 1916, DICH, ISA.
72. “Better and Better Babies” (radio script), DICH, ISA. This decrease is probably related to the fact that by the late 1920s Schweitzer was using a height–weight ratio instead of correlating each separately with age. See Jeffrey Brosco, “Weight Charts and Well Child Care: When the Pediatrician Became the Expert in Child Health,” in Stern and Markel, Formative Years.
73. See “Better Babies at the State Fair” (several versions); “Better Babies Contest History and Rules”and “Method of Counting Scores in Baby Contests,” DICH, ISA; “Meditation of a Second-Summer Baby,” Hub of the Universe 6, no. 4 (July 1923): 1, 4.
74. “Growth of the State Fair Better Baby Work,” DICH, ISA.
75. “Indiana State Fair Better Baby Activities,” Monthly Bulletin of the ISBH 30 (1927): 136–140. For examples of the group composites, see “Group of Healthy and Robust Citizens of the Future,” Indianapolis News, 1 September 1923; “Maybe Your Baby’s Picture is in This Group,” Indianapolis News, 3 September 1925.
76. Ibid; “The Better Babies Building at the Indiana State Fair,” Indianapolis News 27 (1924), 138.
77. Schweitzer to Miss Ora Marshino, 21 September 1927, 11-16-1, CF 1925–28, RG 102, CB, NACP; “The State Fair Better Babies, 1927,” Monthly Bulletin of the ISBH 30 (1927): 110–111.
78. “Proud Relatives Watch Better Babies Examined at Fair,” Indianapolis News 5 September 1927, 17; “Mothers and Babies on Hand early at State Fair Contest,” Indianapolis News, 3 September 1923, 1.
79. “Alma Louise Strohmeyer Best Baby Entered in State Contest,” Indianapolis News, 10 September 1923, 1.
80. “The Better Babies,” Monthly Bulletin of the ISBH 31 (1928): 144–145.
81. “Willy, Nilly, Every Contest Baby Undergoes Same Test,” Indianapolis News 8 September 1931, 1; “Babies and Their ‘Trainers’ Enter Ring at the State Fair,” Indianapolis News, 1 September 1924, 1.
82. “Lung Power of the Better Babies Contest Entrants 100 Percent, Despite All Else,” Indianapolis News, 8 September 1925, 10.
83. Mrs Cecil Rawlings to Schweitzer, 24 September 1922, DICH, ISA.
84. Mrs Stephen Sprong to Schweitzer, October 1922, DICH, ISA.
85. “The Indiana Plan for Child Health and Maternal Welfare,” Monthly Bulletin of the ISBH 36 (1933): 86–87.
86. Madison, Indiana Through Tradition and Change, 325.
87. Exceptions include Pernick, “Eugenics and Public Health,” and Kathy J. Cooke, “The Limits of Heredity: Nature and Nurture in American Eugenics Before 1915,” Journal of the History of Biology 31 (1998): 263–278.[PubMed]

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer


Author of this blog, Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and our Children Who Want to Come Home, and Especially to My Little Julian, is not a lawyer, attorney, or legal practitioner, therefore, no information contained herein this post and/or blog could be (mis)construed as “legal advice.”  Anyone who exercises he/r rights, and private property sometimes called “child” for deceptive, possibly malicious or retaliatory, and profiteering/privateering and in the “best interests” . . . of the “state” Texas General and other Funds at one’s own peril, risk, and/ or self-fulfillment.  The choice is yours.

  • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.
  • (2) Content in this post is protected by Julian’s Real Mummy’s First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the uS Constitution and  Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal, uS Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights, under the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, and/or requirement/demand, then contact Author of this blog immediately as fair notice and due diligence requires so that Author shall act lawfully and reasonably with expedience pursuant to any supplemental knowledge.

Articles from American Journal of Public Health are provided here courtesy of American Public Health Association

Ed Truncellito’s R.I.C.O. Case Against State Bar

Uncovering the Hidden


Ed Truncellito, a Texas Lawyer, is bringing a RICO claim for 7.5 BILLION dollars to expose the ORGANIZED CRIME of the Bar Association. Read these excerpts and then forward this to EVERY NEWSGROUP, E-GROUP, and EVERYONE YOU KNOW!!




Plaintiff, CASUALTIES OF NO-FAULT DIVORCE FRAUD (ASSUMED NAME FOR EDWARD TRUNCELLITO), an individual who is a resident of Texas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, brings this class action suit for $7,500,000,000.00 against the State Bar of Texas, for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 USC §1962, for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and extortion.

(Note: Plaintiff is publicizing this action at web site

SBOT No-Fault Divorce Fraud is a cover-up, like Big Tobacco

7/16/00, Houston Chronicle, p. 17A, “Punitive Damages is memo to industry,” quoting Leighton Finegan, jury foreman of the $145,000,000,000.00 tobacco punitive damages verdict:

a.. “I hope it sends a strong message for all companies in America that they can’t fraudulently represent anything to the public,” he said. “This case was not about choosing to smoke,” Chwast said. “It’s about if you know you’re making a defective product, and these companies knew that.”

Lawyer insider exposes SBOT [State Bar of Texas] No-Fault Divorce Fraud

b.. As an insider to Texas law, Truncellito now blows the whistle on an immense criminal Family Law racket being concealed by the State Bar of Texas, “SBOT.”

c.. Truncellito has discovered, and explains in allegations below-at the peril of fortune and possibly life-that SBOT’s Family Law System was deliberately designed to destroy helpless Texas families for the profit of its own lawyers.

d.. In his 11/24/99 letter, Truncellito informed SBOT that he uncovered massive SBOT corruption causing a family holocaust. An excerpt: “At my own expense I have spent over 1,000 hours researching the law . And my personal investment has not been in vain.

I have uncovered scandalous corruption in Texas family law and in the Texas Family Bar. Texas marriages are being systematically and recklessly destroyed through unlawful adversarial practices of the Texas Family Bar.

But further, in this huge research effort, I have not just uncovered problems. I also have developed reasonable and realistic – though far-reaching – judicial solutions that will substantially remedy those problems at their root.

However, at the same time that marriages are saved, divorces will decline dramatically. Consequently, the revenues of the Family Bar, as the practice exists today, will be dramatically reduced.

The Family Bar lawyers stand to lose a fortune .”

1.. The day after receiving the letter, SBOT, through their agents, Joseph Indelicato and Stephen Statham, began “disability” proceedings to suspend Truncellito’s license to practice law. Mr. Statham explained that Mr. Truncellito’s letter showed “a lot of passion.”

2.. Mr. Truncellito, a teetotaler since 1988, is an honors graduate in computer science who worked eight years as a programmer for the law firm of Baker & Botts. Mr. Truncellito scored in the top one percent on the Law School Admission Test, went to law school at night, at the University of Houston, and graduated in 1995.

3.. On 6/12/00, Mr. Truncellito presented his 220 page “Motion for Rehearing En Banc” to the First Court of Appeals, accusing the First Court’s staff of criminal misconduct in their refusal to interpret the Texas no-fault divorce law (see section below about their “4/20/00 Opinion.”)

1.. The First Court of Appeals denied Mr. Truncellito a fifteen minute hearing on appeal after they knew he invested (by then) fifteen hundred hours in Texas Family Law research.

1.. SBOT Corruption Cover-up Agency-“The Commission” 1.. Only by Divine Providence has Truncellito avoided-thus far-being silenced by the “The Commission” (“Commission for Lawyer Discipline”), SBOT’s secret police, whose rules are designed to conceal SBOT crime and corruption from the public.

2.. “The Commission” (and BODA, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals), is heart of SBOT’s organized crime.

3.. “The Commission” keeps “the profession” from falling into disrepute, much as “The Godfather” keeps “The Family” from falling into disrepute.

4.. SBOT legal corruption is carefully disguised to appear reasonable to untrained eyes, and “The Commission” uses totally secret procedures to silence insider lawyers who have training to recognize the criminal scams when they stumble into them. The Commission even has power to imprison lawyers who reveal that they have been subpoenaed to appear at some of “The Commission’s” secret hearings.

5.. “The Commission” silences whistle-blowers with secret proceedings, using their “disability” rule, which is like a blank check, which reads: “a mental or emotional condition that results in the inability to practice law.”

6.. A license suspension itself results in the “inability to practice law,” and then “The Commission” can name any emotion to fulfill the condition of their rule. The net result: for any or no reason, “The Commission” can suspend a lawyer’s license-and all the lawyer’s earnings.

7.. “The Commission” can have anyone be the initial accuser of “disability.” Then, they appoint their own psychiatrist, prosecutor, witnesses, judge, and jury, to “further consider the issue of ‘disability.'”

8.. Their tribunals have absolute discretion-“The Commission’s” term for absolute power-and absolute secrecy. The Commission knows that absolute tyranny is necessary to enforce absolute silence from whistle-blowers. 1.. All of SBOT is in disorder, but Family Law especially Go To Table of Contents

By the time lawyers graduate from law school and begin to suspect criminal realities in SBOT, they are dependent on their incomes from lawyering, and they cannot afford to make waves.

1.. Some lawyers are in areas of law less prone to the criminal frauds, and their naïveté, and freedom from those schemes, helps protect the image of “the profession.”

2.. Other lawyers either join up with the corruption-or they look the other way and keep silent, because otherwise, dissenters are quickly taught their lesson by “The Commission.”

3.. By the time a lawyer has substantial influence with any breadth, the lawyer knows what must not be inquired into-for wisdom’s sake.

Law schools, by their complex curriculums, assist SBOT’s criminal designs by increasing the cost of entry into “the profession.”

1.. U. of Houston Professor David Crump points out the absurdity of the law school teaching approach, comparing it to learning about baseball by watching a game through a knothole in the fence.

2.. Yet these brilliant doctors of law leave such an antiquated teaching system in place knowing that the barrier to entry helps protect the image-and monopoly-of “the profession.”

1.. 1.. When it comes to disciplining outsiders for “unauthorized practice of law,” any lawyer whatsoever can prosecute a lawsuit against the outsider,” for swift and effective enforcement.

2.. However, for disciplining insiders, for ethical misconduct, the only way a lawyer can be disciplined, is by “The Commission.”

3.. “The Commission’s” disciplinary system requires secrecy unless “The Commission” decides to publish. So any of “The Commission’s” enemies, or lawyers whose misdeeds cannot be concealed, can be exposed for misconduct, while at the same time, criminal rackets can be protected.

2.. The justice system’s present corruption, in Family Law, however, is extraordinary in the scope of its social destructiveness.

3.. Family Law corruption affects the entire population and has destroyed, not only the sacredness of marriage, but the very right to “marry” itself, as marriage has always been known, where spouses must try to stay together peaceably, at least reasonably try to keep their vows, before a divorce can be granted.

4.. Family Law corruption is the focus of this lawsuit. No-Fault Divorce Fraud: Family Hospital deteriorated into a Family Morgue

e.. Letting SBOT’s Divorce Lawyers implement No-Fault divorce laws was like letting morticians implement hospital emergency room procedures. They engineered an assembly line straight to the family morgue.

f.. Divorce Lawyers implemented no-fault divorce only partially with legislation, but then added loopholes primarily within the procedures, ethics, and evidence rules, which are controlled exclusively by SBOT.

1.. The regulatory control for these aspects of the legal machinery is given to the Texas Supreme Court, and nothing gets through to the Supreme Court for consideration unless it passes committees standing guard to protect SBOT self-interests.

2.. No legislation is enforceable except through courts controlled by SBOT-developed rules of procedure, ethics, and evidence. 1.. 1.. 2.. Medicine, in contrast to law, has advanced by great strides, because they have lawyers looking over their shoulders, to compel real accountability with consequences for successes-and failures.

1.. This is one reason why law is so little taught in the grade schools, because the unfairness of legal methods quickly becomes evident even to grade school children; 1.. So by the time young adults become married, they owe fiduciary loyalty to their spouses, but they cannot even pronounce it. g.. Marriage law is an emotionally-charged subject. It is easy for lawyers in legislative committees to play on special interests but for a pretense, and hide self-protection and profit motives.

h.. The fraudulent no-fault implementation channeled money from troubled families to divorce lawyers, now at hourly rates in three digits, in exchange for dividing children and property. Moneys were not directed into reconciliation systems. The court’s officers were hired and paid to terminate marriages, not to save them.

i.. The fraudulent no-fault implementation abolished the fundamental right to true marriage. Fraudulent no-fault took away the legal protection for the once-irrevocable trust established by marriage vows. Instead, SBOT lawyers protect the solemn vows that lawyers make between themselves and an SBOT judge.

j.. The fraudulent no-fault implementation did not train spouses to discover or solve any of the disputes at the heart of marital discord. The fraudulent implementation simply–and grievously–empowered SBOT lawyers to settle all marital disputes for spouses, in one grand sweep, by divorce, no matter how whimsical or trivial the disagreement.

k.. The driving purpose of divorce reform in the 1960’s was women’s equality. But the fraudulent no-fault implementation did not elevate the status of wives as co-equal family managers. It subjected both spouses to overreaching legal domination by SBOT lawyers who became the family managers with the first spouse’s visit and thereafter managed the spouses through their children with custody battles and orders.

l.. More often than not, spouses go to a divorce lawyer, not because they want a divorce but for relief from spouses who are not trained as good husbands and wives. However, pressured by SBOT, in these traumatic personal circumstances, in the unfamiliar legal setting, spouses acquiesce to the lawyers’ lead, and the spouses are unduly influenced to rise up against their own beloved families and children, unknowingly spurred by the ignorance, pride, and greed of unaccountable SBOT lawyers who learn how to inflame even minor irritations into deadly animosities.

But when one-sided, incontestable “divorce on demand,” was opened up by court misinterpretation, suddenly every faithless partner got control of the family, always holding the threat of divorce over the faithful partner’s head. That doubled the divorce rate in about ten years, by about 1980, because beforehand, that other half of the population’s marriages were dominated by the faithful partner-and those marriages weathered the storms.

m.. Fraudulent no-fault divorce implementation was led by Joseph McKnight, who was appointed director of SBOT’s Family Code Project in 1966 and stayed in the role at least until 1974.

n.. McKnight’s 1970 Texas Bar Journal article showed he understood that Texas no-fault divorce was intended for divorces where there was no contest. o.. p.. Then, in 1973, to further the fraud, McKnight perjured himself before the House Committee on the Judiciary, by omission, while representing the State Bar of Texas, in his official capacity as Director of the Family Code Project, 1.. McKnight’s perjury is found on tapes from Hearings on Tex. H.B. 103 Before the House Committee on the Judiciary, 63rd Legislature, R.S., Meeting 11, (March 13, 1973) (from Cassette Audio Tape 3 available from House Committee Services, Legislative Reference Library, Austin, TX 78711; (512) 463-0920).

1.. Testimony shows Rep. Hale’s alerted suspicion of the McKnight’s major overhaul of the entire multiple-subject Family Code Title I, and he was misled by McKnight about the technical significance of the imbedded divorce evidence requirement in §3.64, and it’s unmentioned connection to the change in §3.52 pleadings, though Hale finally acquiesced to then-SMU Professor McKnight’s assurance about sponsorship by the trustee, SBOT.

2.. McKnight carefully worded a half-truth, intending to mislead-while under oath to tell the whole truth-that there were persons (unnamed divorce-at-will advocates) who thought that §3.64 “full and satisfactory evidence” requirement for divorce was “superfluous” and “it didn’t serve any useful purpose,” failing to mention that the change would render the “no-fault insupportability” statute, which was already ambiguous, into incontestable “divorce at will.”

2.. McKnight, as Director of the Family Code Project was well aware, at the time he testified in 1973, of the pertinent case law which showed the “full and satisfactory evidence” provision and the pleading requirements were the mainstays of Texas government’s protection of marriage. q.. No one in the legislature had any idea that the legal protection of marriage was losing a fundamental attribute, and that the fraud of divorce on demand, already begun, would thereafter be unstoppable to implement. McKnight further covered up, in his 1974 Texas Tech. Law Review article, where he said there was “no defense” to a no-fault divorce, although he knew fully well that Texas no-fault divorce was never meant to be defended, but it was only to be used where there was no contest over the divorce.

1.. McKnight, Commentary on Sec. 3.64, 5 Tex.Tech L.Rev. 281, 342 (1974) contains misrepresentations that the burden of proof had not changed, by going from full and satisfactory evidence to ordinary preponderance standard. The article further misleads by complaining of misuse of the evidence standard, an isolated case, while failing to mention its proper use and rationale as had been established for over 100 years by renowned Texas jurists, including Supreme Court Justices.

2.. McKnight, Commentary on Sec. 3.52, 5 Tex.Tech L.Rev. 281, 328 (1974) misleads by assuring everyone that marriages could still be defended by getting facts through discovery, though after 25 years of CLE, discovery is now totally denied at trial, as illustrated in 1999 Amarillo Richards case and now the 2000 Houston First Court Truncellito case, with grounds of divorce ruled irrelevant for discovery, by trial courts, while the courts of appeal uphold these unlawfully-granted divorces. McKnight’s article further misleads by failing to mention the true role of fact pleadings and evidence in strengthening the defenses against contested divorce, defenses which discourage divorce and encourage reconciliations. Removing the right to demand pleadings of fact hindered the ability to defend at trial and on appeal, but McKnight omitted any such comment.

The practicing lawyers deceive marriage partners, and the marriage partners and their children are thereby injured.

1999 No-defense, no Jury: In re Marriage of Richards, 991 S.W.2d 32 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1999, pet. dism’d w.o.j.). Richards case absurd but true meaning: “A contested no-fault divorce shall be affirmed on procedural technicalities, through misapplication of the Szczepanik case, where the Collora case applies, even if there is no discovery, even if a properly requested jury is denied, and even if the judge announced the verdict before hearing any evidence, declaring “there is no defense to no fault divorce.”

1.. High Court Fraud: First Court of Appeals 4/20/00 Truncellito case opinion 1.. Having sanctioned the Truncellito appeal as frivolous, $4,500, after the First Court denied 1,500 hours of preparation a 15-minute oral argument, there must have been some ulterior motive. The 4/20/00 opinion cannot be explained by reason of honorable judging.

2.. The 4/20/00 opinion does not address the contentions in Appellant’s brief, repeats the opponents misconstructions, and capriciously disregards the facts and the law of this case. Intent to defraud, to decide the case apart from its merits, is evidenced in that the 4/20/00 opinion:

3.. The 4/20/00 opinion is a fraud to prevent a fair presentation of the case on the merits, and to prevent rendering a considered opinion of the Court on the substantive law and facts of this case.

In this fraudulent 4/20/00 opinion:

1.. The Court knew it was effectively denying the constitutional right to a fair review.

1.. It knew of the hurdles to overcome the Court’s discretion to deny rehearing, which could be exercised as easily as its first denial of a hearing.

2.. It knew of the difficulty of bringing a no-fault divorce challenge to the Supreme Court of Texas for discretionary review.

2.. The Court knew the 4/20/00 opinion’s deceit would be virtually impossible to rebut because its vagueness leaves so many escape routes.

3.. The Court knew that it owed explicit rationales, so a rebuttal does not have to analyze exhaustively all the various legal paths the Court might have traveled to arrive at its conclusion.

The Court knew that, with undisclosed reasoning, any formal, written rebuttal would face yet one more clever misconstruction to evade again, by adding a few more words of legal ambiguity, again to overwhelm and wear down the beneficiary-challenger with the same endless and futile task-of trying to defeat a prejudiced tribunal with a reasoned argument on the merits.

1.. It knew that a dishonorable, but experienced, legal authority can easily place an impossible burden on its petitioners, through an unending variety of evasive ambiguities, with just one more twist on the kaleidoscope of legal fraud.

It knew that petitioners, the beneficiaries of the public’s Judicial Trust, are helpless to defend themselves against prejudiced tribunals; and, The 4/20/00 opinion avoids consideration of no-fault divorce reform that the case earnestly proposed to the Court to end the family holocaust, and as a result, the SBOT agents within the First Court of Appeals attempted to protect SBOT’s criminal racketeering interests and its systematic destruction of families.

It is absurd to suggest that anyone bright enough to ascend to a professional post at an appellate court, even a new briefing attorney, could seat themselves in an ivory tower, face a 1,000 page record and 1,500 hours research, lower a dome of silence, waive issues by overlooking their validity in the record, dispose of the case on the disingenuous presumption of the meaning of a single-word quasi-admission, and meanwhile profess that justice was being served.

r.. A preliminary survey of the Texas Penal Code suggests that the 4/20/00 opinion, with the record of this case, which it distorts, furnishes prima facie evidence to warrant investigation of Tina Snelling, Peter Steinmann, Joseph Indelicato, Stephen Statham, the First Court of Appeals staff and Justices, and other members of SBOT who have become involved, for perpetrating and/or conspiring to perpetrate the following offenses, some classified as felonies:

1.. Ch. 15: Preparatory Offenses.

1.. §15.02 Criminal Conspiracy

2.. Ch. 36: Bribery & Corrupt Influence

1.. §36.02 Bribery

2.. §36.04 Improper Influence

3.. §36.06 Obstruction Or Retaliation

3.. Ch. 37: Perjury & Other falsification

1.. §37.10 Tampering With Governmental Record

Ch. 39: Abuse of Office

1.. §39.02 Abuse Of Official Capacity

2.. §39.03 Official Oppression

1.. Other SBOT abuses of Families 1.. “The Commission” routinely refuses to respond or to investigate complaints, at least from fathers, for two supposed reasons. First, they characterize complaints as unreasonable dissatisfaction with a fair result. Second, there are too many to keep up with.

1.. The Bar refused to return the telephone calls to Rep Holzhouser’s office for over three months with the Rep’s office calling and writing regularly, on this subject.

Because of three-digit hourly rates of the lawyers, granting interim fees during divorce prosecution is marriage quicksand: the harder the Respondent tries to save the marriage, in a contest, the faster they sink.

1.. either the Respondent will be forced to pay the expenses, thereby crushing Respondent’s will to resist, and crippling Respondent’s ability to defend; or,

2.. Petitioner will be required to pay the expenses, further inciting Petitioner to unwarranted hatred against Respondent, framed by the adversarial gamesmanship of Petitioner’s attorney, contrary to ADR law.

3.. Either way, the family is attacked by Petitioner’s attorney who confidently expects enormous personal profit at the family’s expense.

SBOT knows that divorce clients are easy to exploit, and so lawyers instruct the clients to follow the lawyer’s own purposes, but then they claim that the clients are directing them, for example, into adversarial maneuvers. James R. Elkins, “A Counseling Model for Lawyering in Divorce Cases,” 53 Notre Dame Lawyer 229, at P. 237, footnote 39, comments about the well-known phenomenon: ” . One extremely manipulative attorney has explained how the dependent victim in the rescue game is managed by the attorney. . The same often happens in matrimonial cases. Merely by indicating there is going to be rejection, a lawyer can get a client to do anything he wants him to.” R. Felder, Divorce 69 (1971).

s.. SBOT makes money by divorce, because that is what divorce lawyers have been trained to do, via CLE. Therefore, destroy marriages is what they do.

t.. SBOT has adamantly refused to discipline its lawyers, finding every way to cloud the issues, so it can indulge their lawyers rather than re-train them. SBOT even indulges their criminal exploitation of helpless spouses, via cover-ups in “The Commission,” where it should and could place positive controls on divorce lawyers, to prevent them from instigating strife between couples. Thereby, SBOT hinders implementation of ADR and no-fault divorce.

SBOT in this way conspires to restrain trade unreasonably, to restrict competition in marriage reconciliation & restoration market, choosing their methods of family destruction to make money.

u.. SBOT’s system cultivates hatred, to justify destroying victims’ lives, and it perpetuates itself through greed, by allowing the plunder of the victims’ fortunes.

v.. SBOT lawyers cultivate gender hatred against spouses. Then the two lawyers cross-fire that hatred back on the helpless and emotionally confused opposite spouses, who then wrongly blame their spouse for the attack-or they blame the judge-and then the lawyers play golf together on Friday afternoons.

Each state has similar enterprises which are affiliated through the American Bar Association.

Subject: RICO Suit Against Bar Results In Disbarment Proceedings 
Date:Sat, 19 Aug 2000 15:06:31
From: "jail4judges"

 JAIL News Journal Los Angeles - August 19, 2000

Listen to HotSeat4Judges daily on Internet Radio M - F, 6-7 pm P.T.

   (On or about 6/30/00 a Mr. Ed Truncellito called JAIL and talked
with Mr. Branson. Branson noted him to be a very positive upbeat person
that sounded like a radio announcer. However, Ed unhesitantly responded
that he had absolutely no radio experience. Mr. Branson responded with
the words, "All you need is a microphone, that's all." Well, there was
one little factor that Ed omitted from his conversation with Mr.
Branson, and that was that he was an attorney, a fact of which he just
found out through an email sent to JAIL. He is now in the media
lime-light as a whistle-blower of the Texas State Bar. The TSB is now
attempting to disbar Ed from the practice of law because he had the
gall to expose TSB fraud involvement. Does anyone smell a conflict of
interest somewhere in this? Maybe Mr. Ed would like a little radio time
on HotSeat4Judges to talk about this.)    For Immediate Release:
Contact: Ed Truncellito, Atty.  August 17,
2000. (281) 354-5869


 Houston attorney, Ed Truncellito, was called before the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar of Texas today, in order to undergo examination about his competency to practice law. Yesterday, Truncellito filed a $7.5 billion lawsuit against the State Bar of Texas on behalf of families harmed by Texas' no-fault divorce law fraud. One of the claims in the lawsuit,
 entitled Casualties of No- Fault Divorce Fraud vs. State Bar of Texas, is that the wording of the 1969 law caused it to be implemented contrary to legislative intent. It also claims that the State Bar was well-aware of the problem but covered up, just like Big Tobacco covered up awareness of the harmfulness of its product. When a Texas' spouse hires an attorney, a divorce has been all-but-assured for the past 30 years. Such 'unilateral divorce' or 'divorce-on-demand' is not what the Texas legislature had in mind when the original no-fault law was enacted. In Texas, the law was meant for 'uncontested-only' cases - those divorces where both spouses agreed to the divorce. Enactment of the no-fault law was meant to eliminate the false charges and angry allegations that too-often erupted in courtroom proceedings. When both spouses agreed to the divorce, there was no reason to make allegations. But in cases where only one of the spouses wished to divorce, and the other spouse did not, Texas law still allowed the partner dissenting the divorce to request reasons or 'grounds' for the divorce, along with 'clear and convincing evidence.' Truncellito maintains that, by reducing acrimony, Texas no-fault was enacted to also allow greater likelihood of reconciliation. But common attorney-practice includes the destruction of any remaining vestiges of marital good-will through hostile language in the legal paperwork and in the courtroom, eliminating any resistance from the objecting spouse. Turning divorce attorneys into 'marriage terminators' is not what Texas legislators had in mind when the original no-fault law was implemented, 30 years ago. But then again, attorneys are paid for divorce work, not peacemaking or reconciliation. And the result of greater hostilities results not only in attorney-assurance of a divorce but also further lucrative litigation after the divorce, in ongoing child custody battles and other fights. Truncellito's RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) lawsuit makes claims of systematic influencing and outright corruption in the State Bar, resulting in undue harm to families in court proceedings. Today, the State Bar examined Truncellito in closed session, in what is known as a 'disability hearing.' These confidential examinations are the way the State Bar deals with sticky problems, like alcohol or drug abuse. But because the sessions are not open to outside scrutiny, they can also be used to deal with other thorny issues, like criticism of State Bar practices. Truncellito will be called back in 90 days to hear the committee's ruling on whether he is fit to practice law, after he has been examined by an appointed psychiatrist. 
The RICO lawsuit can be viewed on his web site - - which also includes a copy of his Texas Supreme Court 'Petition for Review' of the no-fault divorce law, filed August 7th. J.A.I.L. is an acronym for (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) JAIL's very informative website is found at JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope! JAIL's is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire! 
JAIL is making headroads into Congress for federal accountability! 
JAIL may be supported at
 P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603 

Use header to subscribe or to remove: 
All E-Groups are encouraged to sign on at " does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <>< ___________________________________________________ Why No One Is Married View Related Articles and Documents Marriage today is no more than "registered cohabitation" because no-fault divorce was misinterpreted as "no cause & no proof" divorce. If you can divorce without true cause--then you were not truly married in the first place. You were merely cohabiting, as in ages past, regardless what name it's called. You could always walk away from a disagreeable cohabitation, but marriage was defined in its protection by law. 

You couldn't get out of a marriage just because you wanted out. You had to have true cause: abuse, adultery, abandonment, or the like. And not only cause, but genuine proof of it. 
When the well-meaning no-faulters tried to take adversarialism out of the divorce process, to make it friendly, it failed. The door swung wide open to "no cause & no proof" divorce. Meanwhile, adversarialism went right back into the property and custody battles. 

The old "fault" laws needed overhaul to bring spousal equality, and to make the system friendlier, but no-fault's "no cause & no proof" divorce, administered by warring lawyers, was the wrong implementation. The law should have required that spouses be taught how, and helped, to settle differences as co-equals, to deliberate justly and fairly, with self-control, while honoring their partner and the vows they made for a permanent union. Beforehand, almost any man could rule his wife and settle disputes by physical force.

 But spousal equality demands at least a little education, a working knowledge of civilized diplomacy and reasoned compromise--for both genders. The no-fault laws did not train the partners to solve any problems. The laws simply--and grievously--empowered the courts to settle all their disputes for them, in one grand sweep, by divorce, no matter how whimsical or trivial the disagreement.

 No-fault did not elevate the status of wives as co-equal family managers. It lowered the status of both spouses, while it elevated the courts as the new, and not-so-charitable, family managers. The no-fault divorce system, as implemented, funded divorce. It channeled money from troubled families to divorce lawyers, now at hourly rates in three digits, in exchange for dividing children and property. The court's officers were hired and paid to terminate marriages, not to save them. The no-fault legal system, as envisioned, was to be a family hospital, to comfort the hurting spouses and bandage the wounded marriages. 

Instead, it became a family morgue. It promised to give relief from the former hostilities of the "fault" legal system, but it became more hostile than ever. Reconciliation dollars, facilities, and assistance were promised, but they never materialized. A generation and a half later, we know that the experiment did not work as planned. In truth, our no-fault laws, as implemented, abolished true marriage. After many years of no-fault, we no longer even respect the solemn covenants that partners make between themselves and God. 

Instead, we respect the solemn covenants that lawyers make between themselves and a judge. Although cohabitation is handicapped in many ways, it unfortunately has one important advantage: ordinary cohabitation keeps government out of the home. In contrast, the registered cohabitation that we still call marriage invokes the jurisdiction of government officers. They receive authority to manage the lives of both spouses and their children with legal force. No wonder people cohabit. 

No wonder we have so many broken homes. Partners can walk away from the slightest inconvenience, at any time, with court assistance. They don't ever have to conciliate, or swallow their pride and say they are sorry, or try to please anyone but themselves. When divorce was made into a guaranteed certainty, it became an easy way out of hard times. Partners knew they would no longer be pressed by embarrassing questions about covenants and faithfulness, as they moved on to their next cohabitation. Nor could they be stopped. The fundamental attribute, the unique defining characteristic, the earmark, that always distinguished true marriage from cohabitation, is legal security--protection by law--protection by divorce law. Today, that protection is gone. 

Genuine proof of true cause was always required for divorce, and anything else--but that--should have changed in an overhaul of divorce law. It is one thing to let spouses decide, without intrusion, for their own private reasons, whether to live together, or to live apart indefinitely. But it is another thing altogether, for government not to question the cause, when government has already intervened, when government is asked to destroy a marriage, totally and permanently. The legal security of true marriage cannot be a chain. But neither can it be a thread. It must be a sturdy fabric, a flexible but tough canvas, to weather the gales of life. That's why true marriage is so secure and stable for mates. 

When spouses cannot easily shake off their yoke, they soften it by mutual accommodation. In other words: spouses don't stay together because they get along; they get along because they stay together. And that's why true marriage is so secure and stable for children. True marriage is underwritten by law. Children can rest assured that no passing storm will carry either of their parents away. They know that the whole force of government stands as a benevolent guard to protect their homes and both of their providers. We are not in the midst of a divorce crisis. It is a marriage crisis. 

No one is married, and no one can marry. The right to marry was taken away. The happy voices of the bride and the bridegroom are gone from our land. 

Article By Ed Truncellito, JD, April, 2000; revised 8/4/00. 
Ed Truncellito 
4582-E Kingwood Dr. #214 
Kingwood, TX 77345 
Phone: 281-354-5869;
 fax: 281-354-4829 Contact Ed Truncellit
o by e-mail (note Juno e-mail uses underscores not dashes...)


Welcome to my Blog!

Posted in Uncategorized at 7:41 pm by Administrator

Feel free to post any comments related to my Website and the Houston Family Law Community…


  1. scott clemens said,

    March 22, 2011 at 7:28 am

    Sounds like I have a similar case, in Dallas County Court, 303rd and been a victim of the corruption since January ’05. Let me read more before I comment further, I am presently case organizing fro U.S. Attorney Generals’ Office…found deaf ears at Texas Attorney General, Texas State Bar, etc have all IGNORED my pleas and requests as “lawyers” and “judges”, both associate and other continue their abuse.

  2. Aaron said,

    June 8, 2011 at 12:59 am

    Dear Steven,

    I am an attorney in the Houston area and would like to talk to you. There are a lot of attorneys who share your same viewpoints about the judges. It hurts the justice system as a whole when there are rogues running amuck. I have some ideas as to fight back against the system.

    Ironically this systematic injustice that exists downtown is a repeat of this book

    Please email me at your earliest convience!

  3. Stan Rains said,

    September 5, 2011 at 7:53 pm

    Look up the efforts of former Houston attny Edward Truncellito. If it will open, here is an archived article,

    Ed was disbarred for standing up to the bar.

    A friend and attorney who stood up for me has been a repeated target of a small group of family law attorneys in Corpus Christi.

    I have more than a few stories to tell on these battles.

  4. said,

    September 11, 2011 at 1:13 pm

  5. Kate said,

    September 11, 2011 at 3:45 pm

  6. GG said,

    September 11, 2011 at 3:46 pm

  7. Garrett said,

    September 11, 2011 at 3:52 pm

  8. Garrett said,

    September 11, 2011 at 3:57 pm

  9. Jgirl said,

    September 11, 2011 at 4:20 pm

  10. KGG said,

    September 11, 2011 at 4:32 pm

  11. Csaba said,

    September 11, 2011 at 9:24 pm

  12. Csaba said,

    September 12, 2011 at 7:52 pm

  13. bethune said,

    September 12, 2011 at 7:56 pm

  14. Sonia said,

    September 20, 2011 at 7:14 pm

    hi Aaron,

    I would like to contact you as well. What is the best way to do so.


  15. Sonia said,

    September 20, 2011 at 7:15 pm


    I am waiting for your blog entries. I lost faith in common sense within family court system. Hope to find motivation and inspiration through your posts.



  16. Janet said,

    September 26, 2011 at 10:44 pm

  17. Montparnasse said,

    September 26, 2011 at 11:11 pm

  18. Gerette said,

    September 28, 2011 at 7:00 pm

  19. Tony said,

    October 11, 2011 at 12:39 am

    Currently, I am proceeding pro se in a Fort Bend County District Court (family court) and have been subjected to malicious prosecution and prolonged economic duress both intrinsic and extrinsic to the proceedings and lack the economic resources to hire an attorney. I do not meet the legal threshold for Indigency. (thank goodness) However, I live paycheck to paycheck and most of my time and resources are exhausted in an attempt to maintaining a loving relationship with my children. This is no trivial task, when faced with an ex that has a pathological need to destroy such relations.
    I firmly believe that after reasonable inquiry into the facts and circumstances of my case a reasonable and prudent person would conclude that the trial court has without good cause aligned itself against me, and has actively engaged in a course of conduct constituting a pervasive pattern of artful manipulation, baiting and bullying me and my prior attorneys, selective or inconsistent application and enforcement of the law, the rules of evidence, and the rules civil procedure; and such conduct is designed and intended to achieve the trial court’s self-serving goals or desired outcome.
    Additionally, the trial judge has maliciously altered portions of active legal instruments that has substantially deprived me of due possess of law and is clearly in violation of Sec. 37.10.of the Texas Penal Code, (TAMPERING WITH GOVERNMENTAL RECORD) and may constitute violations under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law and Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights. Moreover, there are many less flagrant violations that collectively show a pervasive pattern of intentional deprivation of rights that couldn’t have occurred by chance or without intelligent design and purpose. Its not just Houston/Harris County family courts.
    One of these days they are going to get tired of kicking my butt. Maybe then I will find some justice. Stay strong and never give up.

  20. Amanda said,

    November 2, 2011 at 7:46 pm

    I am in the middle of a custody case in the 247 court and have never seen such corruption in my life!!! My Ex filed for custody because I got remarried. His sleezy $500 and hour Lawyers were in the associate Judges back pocket. I could not afford that kind of lawyer so I got the best I could, to no avail. My ex had a case built on lies, the same lies he used during my divorce and he lost everything in the divorce. Why is it now, he gets this big expensive attorney who is padding the judges pockets, she rules in his favor, with absolutely -0- proof!!!! This judge treated me like a mother who is on drugs and abuses and neglects my children. In fact, she stated in the temporary orders that “the court has found proof” there was no proof!! Ive never done a drug in my life, I am a hard working stand up citizen. In fact she ordered me to do several costly test and evaluations. I passed them all with flying colors, in fact the results state the I have no issue with any substances and furthermore, was diagnosed with PTSD, from my abusive ex husband. My lawyer and everyone else was floored at her decision!! She took my kids away. I am still fighting this battle, I dont know where to begin I could use some good advice on what steps I should take to overturn this ruling.

  21. SAM CINO said,

    December 13, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    visit my web site one pg and watch video of nancy schaefer.

    also utube 8sam66

  22. Miguel Pappolla said,

    December 29, 2011 at 3:35 am

    The curruption in family courts is rampant in Texas. If have have an Y chromosome (meaning you are a male) you have no constitutional rights in Texas Family Law Courts. I went through a divorce in which I was falsely acused of abusing alcohol (shown to be false after forensic testing), then of abusing drugs (shown to be bogus after extensive and sophisticated forensic testing). I had to spend about $300.000 in legal fees in order to see my child. The attorney for my spouse, Lindsey Short, Jr. extinguished my then 6 year old child’s educational account (which before the divorce was approximately $90,000 to a current value of $ 0.00) in legal fees, in a case supposedly being “in the interest of the child”. All of this while I was not the bad character of the story. No history of abuse of any kind in my household or anything improper. My child and myself (the father) were punished for no reason. Family Law in Texas is a circus mounted for the financial gain of the attorneys and corrupt culture of the judges. THIS IS THE PATTERN IN TEXAS. SHAME ON YOU, Texas Family Courts.

  23. Red Gown said,

    January 30, 2012 at 4:00 pm

    I read your blog on Bonnie Hellums yesterday. I was not surprised in the least and I absolutely know there are hundreds more who have witnessed their children suffer because of this poisonous woman.

    I also dealt with her and personally witnessed her violating every one of the canons that define judicial misconduct. She is completely unethical, thoroughly dishonest, and lacking in intelligence and humanity. To say that her court is run based on personal relationships is a vast understatement. Attempting to get her superior, Judge Olen Underwood, to address the issue is completely futile. He has literally received scores of complaints and valid requests for her recusal and turns a blind eye and deaf ear… and he is a football buddy (Houston Oilers teammates 1967-9) of Hellums’ husband, Carel Stith. Her husband, Stith, by the way, attempted to silence a displeased client (yes, he is now a family law amicus attorney) by warning him that his wife was a family law judge and would “get him.”

    I, too, read Courtwatch and was appalled to read Hellums touted as a reformer in the book. Her behavior as a judge is not just immoral, it is illegal. I have heard lawyers and other judges alike refer to her as “crazy” and am horrified and amazed that she still holds a seat. Something is terribly broken in the Harris County Family Court system. The FBI investigated it once and I believe it should be brought it again.

    Those who read this blog in order to protect Hellums have chosen personal gain over the interests of the children they have sworn to protect and I hope to see them all experience justice….real justice. We should work toward that end.

  24. Red Gown said,

    February 1, 2012 at 4:03 am

    I read your blog on Bonnie Hellums yesterday.  I was not surprised in the least and I absolutely know there are hundreds more who have witnessed their children suffer because of this poisonous woman.

    I also dealt with her and personally witnessed her violating every one of the canons that define judicial misconduct. She is completely unethical, thoroughly dishonest, and lacking in intelligence and humanity. To say that her court is run based on personal relationships is a vast understatement.   Attempting to get her superior, Judge Olen Underwood, to address the issue is completely futile.  He has literally received scores of complaints and valid requests for her recusal and turns a blind eye and deaf ear… and he is a football buddy (Houston Oilers teammates 1967-9) of Hellums’ husband, Carel Stith.  Her husband, Stith, by the way, attempted to silence a displeased client (yes, he is now a family law amicus attorney) by warning him that his wife was a family law judge and would “get him.”

    I, too, read Courtwatch and was appalled to read Hellums touted as a reformer in the book. Her behavior as a judge is not just immoral, it is illegal.  I have heard lawyers and other judges alike refer to her as “crazy” and am horrified and amazed that she still holds a seat. Something is terribly broken in the Harris County Family Court system. The FBI investigated it once and I believe it should be brought it again.

    Those who read this blog in order to protect Hellums have chosen personal gain over the interests of the children they have sworn to protect and I hope to see them all experience justice….real justice.  We should work toward that end.

  25. Rosalie said,

    March 8, 2012 at 7:44 pm

    The 247th Familly Court – Judge Bonnie Hellums – ruined my faith in the legal system. She repreatedly ignored the evidence across two and half years of hearings, violated my parental rights to my son’s records, discriminated against me because I had the mistfortune to lose my job and get cancer, and conducted herself in the most unprofessional manner from the bench, sarcastic, belittling and threatening. As an example of the many , she sneered “cancer comes back and did I want my son to go through all that.”

    I wished I had had a video-camera everytime I was in her court. (I always order transcripts.) If my attorney and I were not being the brunt of her venom, then I would see before my hearing all the parents that were not represented by Hellums’ favorite attorneys. My mother followed a mom out of the courtroom to console her one time because Hellums had given the three toddlers to the father who did not want them, because the mom’s attorney failed to tell her about the parenting class. When the mom cried, Hellums shouted “crying won’t get you anywhere” as if the mom had thought it would.

    In my case, my son’s father literally marked through the right to determine residency, and wrote in that the “father had the right to determine residency” in our divorce decree in 2002, after Judge Hellums had approved the decree, but before it was filed with the Clerk. In 2009 when my son wanted to live with me, I appeard before Judege Hellums. In the court records, there uninitialed by my attorney and my initials were written in by my ex-husband, was a clear evidence of fraud. However, Judge Hellums rewarded the fraud, she ignored it. Then, Hellums claimed that had no bearing on the case before her.

    In more recent hearings, she denies my right for my son’s records (I have joint custody and conservatorship) even though his father’s team has them and relies on them for expert evidence. There is not case law presented by my Ex, his initimate friend the therapist, and their attorneys. Hellums just denies it because she can. She answers to no one.

    I finally asked for a jury trial, but then I settled in mediation but the Hellums court has left a cruel mark on my son.

  26. Administrator said,

    March 9, 2012 at 5:14 pm

    Rosalie – I’m very sorry for injustice and harm that Judge Hellums has caused you through her actions during your case. I have experienced many more instances in the 5 years that my case was pending other than what is provided on my website in which Judge Hellums based her deciisons, not on the law, but on who her favorite attorney was for that day or who had the better smile… Whatever the case, her and her court court is not interested in the slighted in doing what is in the best interests of our very young children. Instead, she and her flock of favorite attorneys cover for each other’s wrongdoings. I know for a fact that attorneys will illegally communicate (unilaterally) with Judge Hellums regarding a pending case in her court. These are called ex parte communications and are strongly prohibited because they can unfairly influence the judge. Instead of refusng to rerspond to these communications and providing a copy to all other attorneys on the case in accordance with the rules and Judicial Ethics Opinions, Judge Hellums deletes the commnunciations so that there is no evdience of her or the attorney’s wrongdoing and denies ever receiving the communications in open court. Just unbelievable. I have a civil lawsuit pending against a very big name attorney here in Houston, Wendy Burgower, for her malicious actions based in part on the improper influence of her ex parte communciations with Judge Hellums and the resulting order that was signed by Judge Hellums due to the improper influence. What is sad is that no one in the court system will do anything to stop it, even after evidence of wrongdoing is presented.

    Again, I’m sorry for your experience with Judge Hellums and I wish you much luck and happiness with your son… God bless….

  27. Marina said,

    April 1, 2012 at 2:00 am


    You have got a good thing going on here on this page. If we do not speak out somewhere, nobody is interested in hearing our individual stories unless they are repeated cases of corruption, and prejudiced judicial system.

    Judge Carolyn Marks Johnson who gets paid by me with my tax dollars told me to go and spend more of my hard earned money and come to court with an attorney.

    She enforced the fudged MSA bc she cannot stand an independent and intelligent woman in front of her.

    As for Wendy Burgower, beware if you come across as more intelligent than her. She is a diva in her mind and told me off with the following words: ” who do you think you are to go to court on your own? What? You think you are smarter than me? Because I know you are just bitter because your husband left you.”

    No class, classless, an old crow with peacock up her culo.

  28. Sam said,

    August 13, 2012 at 3:32 am

    What is it with 309th? Same lawyers Mary olga Lovett, Robert Kuehm, and Judge Dean. Weird. Too weird to be coincidence.

  29. Administrator said,

    August 14, 2012 at 2:43 am


    Wow – no surprise though. Robert Kuehm and Mary Olga Lovett were masters of deceit and corruption evidenced by their many violations of the Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct when they were a team on my case. Mary Olga said at my trial that she would never work a family law case again – yeah right. I guess there is just too much opportunity to break the rules in the family law courts…

    Thanks for sharing…

  30. Lynn said,

    September 11, 2012 at 9:45 pm

    Judge Hellums worked in the best interest of my ex husband and his family of lawyers and in the worst interest of my children twelve years ago when she presided over my divorce and chose the custodial parent of my children to be a man who left the house at 5 am and left three children, ages 12, 10 and 8 to fend for themselves to wake, ready, and get to school on their own or with an evil woman who started their day by speaking badly of their mother on their way to school. He had nothing but negativeTwo of the three were able to get through challenging years with therapy and God and staying positive through the negative lifestyle they had to endure. The third is now a victim of Bonnie Hellums and her “interest of the child” ruling, back in the court system due to alcohol and drug abuse, in an effort to “escape” the life Bonnie Hellums chose for him. Her words in the courtroom, after checking her watch over and over and seeming bored with character witnesses for myself (at least 10), but listening quite attentively to the one character witness for my ex, his sister, who happens to be a lawyer, “I’ve made my decision….the children will stay in the home with the father and the mother has between 6 and 8pm to remove her belongings”. That was certainly not in the best interest of my children, but no one was listening, especially not the Judge. We owned two homes and I walked out of the courtroom with no home. Shameful that our court system has the power to ruin young lives to favor lawyers–WRONG.

  31. Sam said,

    September 22, 2012 at 6:58 pm

    International protest for the love of children
    Here in Houston on september 27th.

  32. ENRIQUE said,

    October 10, 2012 at 8:49 pm

    A judge in the 247th district court would not even listen to my side of the story even though I have documented video, audio, text messages, paper work that proves the facts of my case. The apposing lawyer postponed the case so long that the amicus representing the case went on his side to slander me and make me seem like all I wanted was child support money when that wasn’t the case at all. My ex spouse kept my son out of school for 2 1/2 months and would not take him to get medical help when he needed it and all I wanted was temporary custody to get him back in school and get him medical attention. They made it into an all out custody battle which was never intended.

  33. Jo said,

    November 13, 2012 at 9:45 pm

    How did you find an atty to file a civil suit? Who is the atty, and would this person be willing to file class action suit?

  34. Dorothea Laster said,

    February 10, 2013 at 3:23 am

    Corruption exists in the world. However, a lot of times what appears to be corruption to a lay person is just a lack of information about how the judicial system works–usually a lack of knowledge about procedural rules. That’s what attorneys know that you don’t when you represent yourself–and the process is not geared toward slowing down and explaining it to you. That said–there are implied findings in a Judge’s ruling from the bench. Clearly a Judge cannot recite 40 pages of text that a divorce decree or other order will end up being. Guidance about short cut phrases about what rights a Joint Managing Conservator will have, for example, is in the Family Code in detail. If you don’t know that, the order you get may be a surprise. Also, attorneys or pro se parties draft orders in Texas State Courts–the Judges typically don’t.

    Judges do not have time to read each proposed decree word for word–if at all. If you have an issue with a proposed order because you don’t think it reflects the Court’s ruling the burden is upon you to come up with your own judgment within the time frame, and file a motion to enter your order/judgment and set it for hearing. If the other side’s inaccurate order got entered without being provided to you first, you can file a timely motion to set aside or correct that order (or call it a motion for new trial), and again submit what you think is the correct judgment language and have a hearing on it. Time limits do matter. You can be right as rain–but if you didn’t file your motion to correct the judgment in a timely manner a Judge lacks the power to correct it. I dislike lawyer and judge slamming. Lawyers studied long and hard and representation of a party to a lawsuit is not as easy as it looks. It makes me mad sometimes–I don’t go to your job an assume I can do what you do without training–why do you assume you can do mine? If you have to represent yourself–assume that there are things (especially deadlines) that you don’t know and try to familiarize yourself with procedural deadlines. If you get an adverse ruling promptly get a cpoy of the transcript of what the Judge said and/or take detailed notes of what the Judge said. That can help any subsequent lawyer trying to help to tell you where you went wrong, and what to do next, or if this really is a rare case of improper judicial conduct. Look in your phone book for low income legal services like legal aid. I hope that helps. This is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice–just an observation.

  35. Sam cino said,

    February 23, 2013 at 8:06 pm

    Politicians have made it legal for Nazi jugdes , lawyers and the children aid socities to kidnapped our children so that they can be bruttally raped and pillaged by them.. with no accountablity !!!! … isn;t democracy beautiful!!!!!

    policticians , jugdes, lawyers , family phsycologist and children aid societies cannot raise their own children but our going to tell me and yuou how to raise ours???????

    my believe ;; if judges are above the law
    therefore they must be God
    i suggest they get nailed to the cross
    and see if they can rise again from the dead.

  36. Stop the Corruption said,

    April 5, 2013 at 4:21 pm

    I am interested in writing a story about corruption in Harris County Family Court. Please contact me by email at stopthecorruptioninharris@gmail.comso that you can share your part of the story. Thank you. I hope to hear from you soon.

  37. jacket said,

    May 25, 2013 at 2:53 am

    Please call me asap. I have a girlfriend going
    Through HELL. This could be a big lawsuit. For anyone who’s been ruined.
    Please. 2103283283

  38. Andrea said,

    July 1, 2013 at 8:01 am

    If you want to write about the Harris County Family Court then you need to hear my entire story that is STILL going on after 15 years and over half a million in attorneys fees. What I can say is that I was lucky to find Wally Mahoney in 1999 because in Harris County every attorney you know will be happy to ask for at least $5,000 to “help you” and if they suck, then they will also be happy to put a lein against your assets to get paid. Wally won for me as long as I followed his rules. And he is a big part of that group of attorneys, and it’s not Wally, it’s just how you have to operate to win in Harris County. I do not advocate Robert Keuhm and would rather see him shipped to practice in Mexico since he was instrumental in removing my children from me after my ex-husband attempted to kidnap my children out of the country. He got mad about my not being able to pay his bills and that’s the way it works.

    Wally isn’t like that, but you have to pay. After years of fighting, and winning and losing and rehiring and firing attorneys – Wally the most (and that takes character to get fired and be re-hired by the same person) I will tell you. Get a prenup. There were great judges when I started my case in 1999, but my Judge is now on the Texas State Supreme Court and the same old groups are running the show. And the judges make you hire Dr. Silverman, and Dr. Silverman or their shrink of choise, and the Judge will put you at risk and ensure you live with your soon to be ex unless you get beat up and gain a protective order. Then you have to leave the home with no property or money until you can get the judge to have you very FAIR ex husband to allow a FRIEND OR NEIGHBOR to come get the THINGS HE chooses to disclose that he has – despite all this father’s rights crap – there are no winners in this situation and the father’s rights advocates have ruined the system.

    There should be no bias on gender per our constitution. Right? Please avoid that father’s rights crap – for those women whom have lost their rights but don’t have a Political Action Committee backing them. Let’s call it even. I know the Harris County Family Court Judges tried to right a long-time wrong of father’s not gaining custody but it was OVERKILL. And it literally did kill. I know more than one mtoher that has been stalked and killed. I know children that have committed suicide. And I know one father that gained custody from a dedicated mother that had a wonderful job and gave her two children wonderful lives, but I had a brain aneurysm. When I got out of hte hospital alive, I had lost my kids and was ordered to pay child support. I’ve never recovered from that, nor has Wally I am sure. But there was an Ad Litem name Robert Keuhm that could have made a difference.

    There were many others involved in my case which listen PEOPLE involves a Mexcian National that flies for Continenatl Airlines, dresses like a woman most of the time, and is holding my children hostage – he frightens me, threatens to hurt them and I just wait for them to turn 18. That is all I can do after all the money, and the sincere threat of their disappearance to Mexico or Germany. Count your blessings Dads, and remember there are women tat have suffered the same injustices. If I could, and I will. I will write my book when I am sure my children will not be hurt any more than they do now, since if I even attempt to visit them, he serves me for any unnecessary thing. And his attorney is a woman. How about that? Don’t hesitate to call me and I can refer you all over town tot the right attorneys, do not ask your neighbor, your boss, your friend. Ask someone that knows and has spent hours upon hours in the 409,

  39. jo said,

    July 13, 2013 at 4:09 pm

    Aaron, you are an atty. You had some ideas. I would like to talk to you. How can you be reached? My grandson would like to take action, and I would like to help him if possible. Oh,Truncellito is dirty, He was part of the corruption. His office address is non existant, and he is now working for the federal Govt. He is and was involved in this crud. Not only was there an FBI investigation(stopped by Don Clark who went to work for the O’Quinn law firm), there was a US Justice dept investigation. The women and men who protested this coruption almost got them, but they killed several of them including Donna Ringoringo, and another man. These were good people. They also fired the US investigator. The dirty people won. These people are organized criminals. they need to be stopped.

  40. Darla said,

    November 18, 2013 at 8:59 pm

    If you google The Enos Law Firm Newsletter there is an article that reads Judge Bonnie Hellums must change her illegal policies. This judge Bonnie Hellums in court 247th must enjoy taking kids away from their mothers. This judge gave my son’s father custody after he failed 2 drug tests that were court ordered and he is a convicted felon. All because he had a better lawyer that knows the judge. The decision was made before I even went to court. I did not get a fair trial and I lost my son just because I had moved out of state and had to move back. My son’s father denied me of many visitations but I still have to pay him child support. I have lost my son all thanks to this judge. Please vote someone else in before more children are taken from their mothers for no good reason.

  41. Victor rojas said,

    January 13, 2014 at 8:12 pm

    My name is victor rojas , me and my daughter are victims of this evil women Bonnie hellums . On 2002 I went to court just for a costedy arrangement . My ex had a really good lawyer mine not so good . My ex lied her eyes out I out me that I was a drunk , I did drugs , I beat her , I tryed to kill my daughter which was two years old at the time . And judge Bonnie hellums belived everything she said , and my ex had abselutly no proof or records of these thing she said happend . But I belive because I’m of Mexican descend and my ex is white the judge belived her . So after all that the Judge sent me to a drug and alchole assesment center and nothing negative came out . Then I did a year at safe program they gave me good reviews , a hair drug test came back negative for drugs . Sent me to her clinical sycoligist he said I had no anger issues and there was nothing wrong with me . I was thrown in jail because I was like three months late on child support . But I did pay my ex every late payment when she took me to court . The story gose on and on . I fought her for about 8 years and I still have not seen my child . I don’t understand how some horrible person can sit there and deside to ruin someone’s life and nothing can be done about it . At least I know when she dies she will be judged for everything she did to us .

  42. Attorney CS said,

    January 18, 2014 at 9:00 am

    I am an attorney and uncovered wide spread corruption. It is not just in the family law courts, it is in all of the courts. It involves the clerks, the lawyers, the DA’s, and more. It is not a friendship deal, it is all financial (payoffs). It is a system of criminal lawyers and judges, who have a criminal system to defraud unsuspecting persons. They love when the unsuspecting party does not know what is going on. They all put on a show. And even the lawyer for the unsuspecting victim, determined at the start of the case, knows what us going on. The only one who does not know is the litigant with the bad label. It is sick and evil. But it is not only family law. They will target a business to take over, a person with money to steal from and they come from all sides. They use the same scams over and over and the same tricks over and over. I have been fighting the corruption for years and I think I will publish a book with the top 100 tricks they all use to cheat. Then, they use the state bar of Texas to attack the lawyers who speak out, which is what I am going through. It is a constant fight. The system is very sick and almost, if not, hopeless. A lot of arrests and a lot of changes need to take place to change this corrupt system before we fall like Rome. It is just as bad here as any third world country, and if you do not believe it, that is because you do not see it.

  43. Attorney CS said,

    January 18, 2014 at 9:06 am

    This in on the FBI’s website and this is what is going on all over the place. If you want to know what is happening, read this.

    “Public Corruption: Courtroom for Sale Judge Gets Jail Time in Racketeering Case”


  44. Frank Bustoz said,

    February 17, 2014 at 8:08 pm

    In Austin….dealing with my ex’s unethical dirty scoundral of a lawyer…he and her are hell bent on minimizing my time with my son. Anyone with any advice or recommendations ….I appreciate any help!!?? I currently have a SAPCR final Order…she violated it for six months under the advice and urging of her attorney….I need to know how to file sanctions on opposing counsel…MOtion to Disqualify…as well a a civil suit if this is possible ….

  45. Frank Bustoz said,

    February 17, 2014 at 8:10 pm

    Hello, In Austin….dealing with my ex’s unethical dirty scoundral of a lawyer…he and her are hell bent on minimizing my time with my son. Anyone with any advice or recommendations ….I appreciate any help!!?? I currently have a SAPCR final Order…she violated it for six months under the advice and urging of her attorney….I need to know how to file sanctions on opposing counsel…MOtion to Disqualify…as well a a civil suit if this is possible ….

  46. Richard Letty said,

    September 18, 2014 at 4:08 pm

    Bonnie Crane Hellums has breached her judiciary responsibilities as judge in the 247th District Court by engaging in such practices as tampering with transcripts, engaging in exparte communications with opposing counsel, and extending legally inconsistent rulings for the benefit of favored attorneys. We, the citizens of Texas, petition the State of Texas to deny Judge Hellums any and all benefits that may accrue to her from the State of Texas and Harris County.

    Without you, the citizens of Harris County, justice cannot be served for the children and families who have suffered because of Judge Hellums’ alleged bias and violations of law. Until now, the stories and voices of those affected have not been heard. Today, a chance for change is possible and we all have a voice that can be heard across the world-wide web. Sign the petition at for “No More HELLums” and justice for our children.

  47. Priscella said,

    December 30, 2014 at 12:50 pm

    I am also a victim of court 247. my kids were forced to live with their dad one year ago. It broke me emotionally and my children too. I’m beginning to feel strong again and would like to tell my story and I’m seeking people who will be willing to help me. My children are 10 and 7. They were 7 and 5 when our world’s were thrown into a tornado. They cry and wish so much to have their old lives back. I’m not even sure if that is possible. But I am willing to at least try. I love my children and I would never give up on them.

  48. Sara said,

    February 2, 2015 at 6:23 am

    can a RIGHTEOUS attorney within a state AS BIG AS TEXAS simply STEP UP ?

    this is UNREAL that no one can get a word in edgewise inside these kangaroo courts and OUR FAMILIES ARE DESTROYED.

    and folks ? this ALSO APPLIES to the subhumans within the probate /guardianship AND THEY ARE CPS ON STEROIDS.
    Instead of your under age 18 children disappeared, our adult aged DISABLED and elderly ARE DISAPPEARED.
    SOME GET LUCKY and PAY THOUSANDS to make their own disabled adults WARD OF THESE COURTS as that’s ALL A GUARDIANSHIP DOES, it makes THEM WARDS OF THE COURT and goolygeeeez,THEY THEN ALLOW YOU TO POSSESS THE WARD….bbbbut as THEIR WARD and you all are on a lifetime of PROBATION reporting to the COURT.
    plus in MOST CASES there are no charges or crimes or even APS involved….just THEIR SACRED WORD against YOUR FACTUAL TRUTHS.
    sound familiar ? same script different stage and actors.

    why is there NO ONE to take authentic, VERIFIED CASES regarding JUDICIAL ABUSE = constitutional violations ?

    WE need to UNITE AND FIGHT NONSTOP and sue them out of business.

  49. Camilla said,

    February 7, 2015 at 6:45 am

    Corpus Christi – is there any accountability in family law court for arrogant spouses who break all temporary orders or for attorneys who seem to turn a blind eye to the needs of their own client? While I won’t claim to have been the best spouse, I entered into the legal process of divorce with respect and intention to allow the law to settle our differences but I am the only party involved who is. What recourse do I have if my spouse closed over 200 thousand dollars worth of accounts, made criminal accusations to an employer, gave my dog away, changed the locks on our home, refused to give me the paycheck my employer mailed to said home and refused to show at mediation? My paid in full attorney hasn’t answered my questions and because of the in access to my own money, I can’t hire another!
    Suggestions? (thank you)

  50. Michael said,

    February 18, 2015 at 4:47 pm

    It was just brought to my attention that an attorney that is appointed as an amicus out of this court is married to a convicted child sex offender with a long history for drugs. The attorney is Shannon Boudreaux and she is married to a guy names Richard David Crow. I can’t believe these judges would appoint someone as an amicus for the children who is married to a person convicted of a sexual offense against a child.
  • ——– Original Message ——– Subject: Richard Fine Radio Interview 5/1/2015 7:00 pm PDT Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 19:09:14 -0700 From: Richard Fine
    To: VICTORYUSA@^$1
    CC: Richard Fine
    Dear Ron: Would you please be so kind as to distribute this. It is the start of our Campaign to end judicial corruption and accomplish judicial reform with the 2016 elections.
    Regards, Richard The…
    Victory USA Apr 30
  • Matthew 24:9 “Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.” ‘Killing Jews Is Worship’ Posters Will Soon Appear on NYC Subways and Buses 23 Apr 2015 NYC by Michael E. Miller in Share New Yorkers are used to aggressive advertising. Banners for breast implants. Billboards for condoms. But a federal…
    Victory USA Apr 23
  • ——– Original Message ——– Subject: ENGENEERED drought catastrophe, watch… Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 00:21:09 -0400 From: Lea2319@^$1 DROUGHT IS ALL MAN MADE FOLKS… WATCH AND LEARN THE TRUTH … Government playing God with the weather! Engineered Drought Catastrophe, Target California Dane Wigington
    Victory USA Apr 13
  • ——– Original Message ——–
    Subject: Fwd: HOW MOSES GOT THE 10 COMMANDMENTS …………..
    Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 21:43:26 -0500
    From: emeliebird@^$1
    To: renzur@^$2 , VictoryUSA@^$3 , tigres6971@^$4
    —–Original Message—–
    From: Danielle Avidan
    To: sylfree ; Julianne Nameth ; PIERRE BOUCHARA ; Brenda Green
    Sent: Mon, Feb 9, 2015 3:26 pm
    Subject: Fw: Fwd: HOW MOSES GOT…
    Victory USA Feb 15
  • ——– Original Message ——–
    Subject: Deception and Corruption — The Wake-up Herald
    Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 16:36:18 -0500
    From: Herbap@^$1
    To: herbap@^$2 The Wake-up Herald And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off…
    Victory USA Nov 29, 2014
  • Interesting. The people’s votes are being declared unconstitutional by Federal Judges. We have now judges who are taking over the voting process against the people. Ron Branson
    ——– Original Message ——–
    Subject: Google Alert – judge
    Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 07:14:23 +0000
    From: Google Alerts
    To: victoryusa@^$1 judge As-it-happens update ⋅
    November 27, 2014 NEWS ABC News…
    Victory USA Nov 28, 2014
  • ——– Original Message ——–
    FW: This will leave you feeling grateful for these kinds of folksTHE CANDY BOMBER……. THIS IS WONDERFUL. A must see.
    Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 19:26:45 -0800 Resent-From: beholdtheman@^$1 Resent-To: VictoryUSA@^$2
    Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 19:26:36 -0800
    From: Harold Ervin
    To: Harold Ervin Subject: This will leave you feeling…
    Victory USA Nov 26, 2014
  • ——– Original Message ——–
    Subject: Another judicial corruption fighter is facing the hand of the corrupt
    Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 22:44:17 +0000 (UTC)
    From: cruz gomez
    Reply-To: cruz gomez
    To: Victory USA Greetings Ron, I am sharing this information with you and your participants which I received a while ago. Two days ago I received a message from an unverifiable source…
    Victory USA Nov 20, 2014
  • What the ‘Gay Marriage’ Debate is Really About Written by J. Matt Barber on Monday, 17 November 2014. Posted in Opinion , J. Matt Barber The common law, natural law and reality itself preclude any man, any court, any government, even state governments, from presuming to redefine the institution of marriage to exclude the necessary element of binary male-female complementarity. It…
    Victory USA Nov 18, 2014
  • …Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 18:53:30 +0100
    From: Jim Krage
    To: Victory USA
    Hi Ron:
    I’ve been unable to view your website Is it down? If not, the response times are so slow that I can’t see it.
    Jim Krage
    Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 at 3:19…
    Victory USA Nov 5, 2014
  • ——– Original Message ——–
    Subject: Lesbian Mayor–Turn In Sermons Or JAIL!
    Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 18:05:23 -0400
    From: Pastor D. A. Waite
    Reply-To: bft@^$1 To: victoryusa@^$2 SENDING #1 Houston’s Homosexual Mayor Demanding Pastors Submit Sermons For Review After a widely opposed ‘non-discrimination ordinance’, Houston’s first openly homosexual mayor Annise Parker…
    Victory USA 15 Oct, 2014
  • ISIS to Attack US with Ebola. Jihadists ‘to Send Infected Militants’ to America to Spread Disease Oct 05, 2014 04:26 am By Gopi Chandra Kharel If latest reports are to be believed, the Islamic State militants might be conspiring to deliberately infect jihadists with the deadly Ebola virus and send them to America in order to spread the disease in the US. ISIS to Attack US with…
    Victory USA 05 Oct, 2014
  • Thank you, Elaine. From time to time I find myself breaking up in tears. At the funeral in Riverside, I got up and spoke, and I could hardly talk due to the overflow of tears. But I know Barbie is in heaven and no loner suffering the pain of the cancer. He two daughters today left for their homes in Colorado and Virginia. I took them each to their respective airports. Thank you so…
    Victory USA 27 Sep, 2014
  • Attached hereto is photos of Barbie Branson’s grave site. Her tombstone will be placed in place approximately four weeks from now. Her grave is located in Riverside National Cemetery where, should the Lord terry, my remains shall also be placed. I am now going through a time of grieving, not because I sorrow with no hope, but because I miss Barbie so much after 38 years with her…
    Victory USA 26 Sep, 2014
  • ——– Original Message ——–
    Subject: Death in the reform family
    Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 19:50:34 -0700 Resent-From: beholdtheman@^$1
    Resent-To: VictoryUSA@^$2
    Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 19:50:33 -0700
    From: Gary Zerman
    To: lawsters@^$3 It is with a heavy heart and my condolences that I inform you that Ron Branson called me earlier this evening and informed me that his…
    Victory USA 19 Sep, 2014
  • Judicial Reform ——– Original Message ——–
    Subject: Judicial reform
    Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 16:41:52 -0600
    From: Clean Up the Courts
    To: VictoryUSA@^$1 Ron, I’m a lawyer who has practiced for 20 years in Colorado. I have drafted a couple of initiatives that I am trying to get on the Colorado ballot. One of the initiatives is crafted to remove the conflict of interest in the…
    Victory USA 24 Aug, 2014
  • ——– Original Message ——–
    Subject: Check out Will the IRS Monitor Sermons?
    Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 13:14:17 -0400 (EDT)
    From: Herbap@^$1
    To: herbap@^$2 Will the IRS Monitor Sermons?
    Written by Gary North on August 18, 2014
    This report appeared on the WND site. Imagine uttering the words “pro-life” in your church and finding yourself targeted by an investigation from…
    Victory USA 21 Aug, 2014
  • ——– Original Message ——–
    Subject: From Don Bird – The Ninth Circuit Reply from Don Bird
    Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 15:06:25 -0700
    To: Ron Branson copy FILED jUN 11 2014 Molly c. dwyer clerk u.s. court of appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DONALD M. BIRD No. 14-15449 Plaintiff – Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-02549-MCE-CKD v. Eastern District of…
    Victory USA 10 Aug, 2014
  • …judges are totally free to do whatever they wish with complete immunity, and they cannot be held liable to anyone. This is what JAIL4Judges is all about, that is, exposing the truth about judges. Unfortunately, this a hard pill for the public to swallow as few understand…
    Victory USA 02 Aug, 2014
  • Epidemic of California Judge$ On The Take! ——– Original Message ——– Subject: Stop County Bribes to California Judges Now: Here’s How! Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 23:06:26 +0000 From: richardfine@^$1 To: VictoryUSA@^$2 , richardfine@^$3 Dear Ron: We have just a few days to stop the county supervisors from “bribing” California judges for another year through payments in the…
    Victory USA 01 Jul, 2014
  • ——– Original Message ——– Subject: Vote to End Judical Corruption on June 3 Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2014 19:22:41 +0000 From: richardfine@^$1 To: VictoryUSA@^$2 , richardfine@^$3 Dear Ron: Please distribute the following press release from the Campaign for Judicial Integrity. This the voters’ opportunity to put candidates into the November 4, election who signed the CFJI Pledge…
    Victory USA 02 Jun, 2014
  • …this nation with the goal of creating a big screen movie to be displayed in the theaters for all to see. Yes, even I, the National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief, am a part of this movie. But everyone has been asking, “Whatever happened to Bill Windsor and the forthcoming…
    Victory USA 20 May, 2014
  • …overthrow governments, but we dare not use “Spam,” so called, to overthrow governments. That is unethical, and is not nice. Hence, the JAIL4judges website was brought down from promoting the People’s absolute inherent right within the Initiative Process. This is why the People…
    Victory USA 09 May, 2014
  • …term future of same-sex marriage in Tennessee. — It’s time People hold Judges accountable to Special Grand Juries, . This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active…
    Victory USA 17 Mar, 2014
  • HAVE AN EXIT PLAN By Chuck Baldwin February 13, 2014 Matt Drudge, owner and publisher of the “Drudge Report,” recently tweeted a cryptic warning to his readers, “Have an exit plan.” Here is how Susan Duclos reported the story in “The economic indicators are bad, markets, the weakening dollar, banks preventing large withdrawals, news…
    Victory USA 06 Mar, 2014
  • snowden-bombshell-seems-he-downloaded-entire-roster-of-u-s-government-all-names-home-addresses-and-other-personal-info-of-all-officials-and-govt-employees-including-law-enforcement-pl/ Snowden Bombshell:
    Seems he downloaded entire roster of U.S. government – all names, home addresses and other personal info of **all** officials and gov…
    Victory USA 25 Feb, 2014
  • …his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall … be tormented with fire and brimstone…” Rev. 14:9, 10. KJV Ron Branson National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief VictoryUSA@^$1
    This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus…
    Victory USA 20 Jan, 2014
  • Federal Judge Forces All Boys School Wrestling Team To Permit Girl To Join School argues that there are psychological, physical and moral risks for girls wrestling boys, however, Federal Judge Mathew Brann found that the school failed to present expert testimony or give any examples that support their claim that girls are fundamentally different from boys. This case makes us…
    Victory USA 13 Jan, 2014
  • Defining Crimes – Well, Sort Of! From Robert Striffler – bob_striffler@^$1 Currently, the prevailing case law is that an infraction is not a “crime” (well, sort of, and some rulings are now making that fuzzy), so, of course there would be a need for reasonable suspicion to detain for investigative purposes for an infraction. Reasonable Suspicion has been defined as articulable and…
    Victory USA 10 Jan, 2014
  • Common Law Grand Juries – Is There Such An Animal? By Ron Branson National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief January 6, 2014 Yesterday I was contacted by an acquaintance whom I…fable, which is “JUDGES CAN DO NO WRONG!” Out of this background has arisen the concept of JAIL4Judges, which means Judicial Accountability Initiative Law for Judges by the proposal of the…
    Victory USA 06 Jan, 2014
  • …corrupt system. For those not familiar with my presentations on the judicial system, and with my being the author and founder of the JAIL4Judges organization, I direct you to . As soon as I hear someone contacting…
    Victory USA 30 Dec, 2013
  • The U.S. Constitution vs. The Federal Judiciary By Ron Branson, National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief 12/29/2013 The U.S. Constitution claims to be the supreme law of the land, and all officials thereunder shall…
    Victory USA 29 Dec, 2013
  • …records about the program this year. Read Pauley’s full ruling here . Search And Seizure And The NSA By Ron Branson National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief 12/24/2013 One of the more controversial issues of the day is that regarding the National Security Agency (N…
    Victory USA 27 Dec, 2013
  • …discuss with me. Allow me to introduce myself. I am Ron Branson, the Commander-In-Chief of JAIL4Judgesin America. We are not a business, but seeking to recover this country to the U.S. Constitution…Ronald Branson, Member, California 38th Assembly District Republican Central Committee. This email is free from viruses and malware because avast…
    Victory USA 27 Dec, 2013
  • Search And Seizure And The NSA By Ron Branson National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief 12/24/2013 One of the more controversial issues of the day is that regarding the National Security Agency (N…
    Victory USA 24 Dec, 2013
  • …Deputies being arrested and charged with corruption. Year after year, we find these very same taking place. Ron Branson National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief;
    Victory USA 11 Dec, 2013
  • Obama Administration Admits Over 126,000 Enrollments In Obamacare Not Real! December 6th, 2013 The Free Patriot by Brandon Walker The Obama Administration is now having to admit that over 126,000 enrollments into the Obamacare system are not real. From fake friends on Twitter…
    Victory USA 07 Dec, 2013
  • Judge Sues Police For Excessive Force By Ron Branson National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief VictoryUSA@^$1 It is no secret that wrongful police action is generally covered up by judges. But what makes…
    Victory USA 25 Nov, 2013
  • ——– Original Message ——– Subject: Re: Never trust cops …… Advise, please Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 14:07:00 -0800 (PST) From: Abra Summers Reply-To: Abra Summers To: Victory USA Ron, This message you sent that relates your experience with the courts and judges is a living nightmare. I know it is true, because I know you, and as one of your many friends who admire and…
    Victory USA 09 Nov, 2013
  • AdChoices

    This no-fee card is now offering a $200 signup bonus for spending just $500 in 3 months. Pocket an easy $200 before this offer is gone. Sponsored

  • America Enraging Its Allies By NSA Snooping In On Leader’s Private Conversations It has come to the light of the leaders of our allies that NSA is spying on their private conversations, which has expressed outraged in our curren news. Now, the NSA is experiencing a shut down of their site. NSA calims it is not under attack, but just updating their software. Such outrage is…
    Victory USA 26 Oct, 2013
  • Judges Behind Expediting A Sodomite America By Ron Branson VictoryUSA@^$1 As we know, that God judged Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins against God in practicing homosexuality during the days of Abraham. Such incident was God’s example of the coming judgment upon America, and all other nations who forget God! Psalms 9:17 clearly states, “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and…
    Victory USA 20 Oct, 2013
  • US Federal Reserve Bank facing charges from diaspora Armenians ISTANBUL – Hürriyet Daily News | 3/20/2011 12:00:00 AM | VERCİHAN ZİFLİOĞLU Jewelry and gold confiscated from Armenian houses during the turmoil in the Ottoman Empire in 1915…
    Ron Branson 19 Sep, 2013
  • Alert: California poised to ban lead ammo with help from the Humane Society of the United States The Daily Caller 09/11/2013 By Larry Keane, National Shooting Sports Foundation The recent opinion piece in the San Diego Union Tribune…
    Ron Branson 15 Sep, 2013
  • …least places the cross-hairs toward the right Branch of government. You are suggesting that JAIL4Judgesjump in behind the New York Time’s effort to “reverse surveillance” public officers, their…for committing such unpardonable sin. So what I propose, Dr. Cordero, is that rather than JAIL4Judges getting behind the New York Times, we should get the New York Times behind JAIL4Judges in…
    Ron Branson 07 Sep, 2013
  • …Criminals area. Its all laid out for us. Now comes the hard part. No, it is not the available of a remedy as set forth in , but our love for Federal Reserve Notes. No one wants to depart with those worthless…
    Ron Branson 29 Aug, 2013
  • Why Work For a Living When You Can Receive More From Welfare? Michael Bastasch of The Daily Caller brings to our attention the above question regarding the state of the American economy. He points out that in 35 of our 50 states, welfare will pay you more than your minimum wage job. Thus, the best economic advice is you can get is to quite your job and go on welfare! Let the fools…
    Ron Branson 22 Aug, 2013
  • America NoLonger Has a Functioning Judicial System July 22, 2013
    The Separation of Powers Which Define Our Democracy Have Been Destroyed The Department of Justice told a federal court this week that the NSA’s spying “cannot be challenged in a court of law” . (This is especially…
    Ron Branson
    20 Aug, 2013
    Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government.
    When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed.
    The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition…
    Ron Branson
    04 Aug, 2013
  • Imagine a World With No Privacy By Ron Branson National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief
    There are two types of privacy in this world – i.e., “Close the bathroom door, please, I need privacy!” and…
    Ron Branson
    02 Aug, 2013
  • Cash For Congressional Votes! By Ron Branson National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief Its official. Congress has now authorized Fourth Amendment violations of your right to privacy by voting by…
    Ron Branson 30 Jul, 2013
  • Cops Ordered to Meet Quotas On Arrests and Tickets * * * Cop Fired for Speaking Out Against Ticket and Arrest Quotas Tracy Oppenheimer | July 24, 2013 Auburn, Alabama is home to sprawling plains, Auburn University, and a troubling police force. After the arrival of a new police chief in 2010, the…
    Ron Branson 25 Jul, 2013
  • WND EXCLUSIVE Coming soon: America’s own Islamic ‘no-go’ zones Expert on terror training camps says expansion plans in works By Bob Unruh Wednesday, July 24, 2013 Coming soon to dozens of locations across the United States: America’s own “no-go” zones where Muslims install their own courts, government…
    Ron Branson 25 Jul, 2013
  • Top Government Officials Flea U.S. As News Develops of U.S. Spying On Its Own Citizens High government officials are being declared “Enemies Of The State” because they dared to expose insider information as to what was taking place within the NSA to the Congressional House Judiciary Committee who is investigating this issue. This act has caused the Obama Administration to charge…
    Ron Branson 20 Jul, 2013
  • AdChoices

    See What Leading Beverly Hills Plastic Surgeon Dr. John Layke Recommends to Lift And Firm Skin Without Surgery.

    Beverly Hills MD Sponsored

  • … Re: Resolving The Court’s Conflict By Ron Branson National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief It has been pointed out that the decision of the Supreme Court cannot possible stand neither according to law…
    Ron Branson 19 Jul, 2013
  • Big Brother’s (NSA) Espionage Of All Decision-Makers Big Brother’s (NSA) espionage into the private lives of Military Generals, Congressmen, Senators, and U.S. Supreme Court Justices, as well as all private and personal conversations via telephone, emails and text messages, allows them to master U.S.A. Through its accumulation of knowledge, it can now totally control America in…
    Ron Branson 18 Jul, 2013
  • Texas Judge Commits Suicide By Ron Branson National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief There are many cases of government officials committing suicide of which neither government nor the news media…
    Ron Branson 17 Jul, 2013
  • Cops Fear Bounty On Their Heads * * *
    New Indiana Law Allows Citizens to Shoot Police Officers
    By Michael Allen , Tue, June 12, 2012
    In Indiana, police officers are upset over a new law allowing residents to use deadly force against public servants, including law enforcement officers…
    Ron Branson
    10 Jul, 2013
  • * * * Vudo Economics * * * By Ron Branson VictoryUSA@^$1 July 1, 2013
    We are in a stage where governments think they can alter and revise natural laws. Natural laws are those laws which exist whether we like them or not. These laws are instituted by God Himself. They are unalterable by kings, potentates, magistrates and legislatures. Such inalienable laws are recognized in our…
    Ron Branson 01 Jul, 2013
  • Michele Bachmann:
    DOMA, Propositon 8 Rulings Attacked Our Constitution The Huffington Post | By Mollie Reilly
    Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., joins House Republicans to speak during a news conference in opposition to the Supreme Court’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) decision on Wednesday, June 26, 2013.
    (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call) Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) railed…
    Ron Branson
    29 Jun, 2013
  • Taking the Snowden Prosecution A Step Further By Ron Branson National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief Snowden has exposed the fact that the government is snooping into the personal communications of all Americans…
    Ron Branson
    25 Jun, 2013
  • “They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. ” – Benjamin Franklin, 1775
    Obama contends that eavesdropping upon every American’s emails and telephone communications, is a worthy price to pay in the loss of liberty in order to keep us safe.
    But the Constitutional premise is that it is not the job of government to keep…
    Ron Branson
    23 Jun, 2013
  • We Don’t Need No Stinking Warrant To Spy On You!
    By Ron Branson
    National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief
    Either we have a Constitution, or we do not. Either the Constitution…then that may be used to control your life. This is precisely the reason why we must have JAIL4judges, institution within this Land per
    Ron Branson 17 Jun, 2013
  • …Affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Ron Branson National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief VictoryUSA@^$1 * * *
    Ron Branson 13 Jun, 2013
  • …not in any forum of government. It is in the People’s Grand Jury, but I cannot get this through the People’s heads. I wrote the JAIL4judges provision in April of 1995, but the People just do not understand…
    Ron Branson
    08 Jun, 2013
  • Law? Law? What Is The Law?
    By Ron Branson National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief
    Ron, I just saw the news on CNN’s bottom-line news strip that cops CAN now take your DNA if you are arrested…
    Ron Branson
    04 Jun, 2013
  • …should be a constitutionally protected right that must be adopted universally by the Boy Scouts of America. Ron Branson National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief VictoryUSA@^$1 * * *;
    Ron Branson 24 May, 2013
  • …report gives new meaning to the words of the song, “And we’ll all be gay when Johnnie comes marching home.” Ron Branson National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief VictoryUSA@^$1 * * *;
    Ron Branson 20 May, 2013
  • Judge Covers For Police, Throws Out Grand Jury Indictment By Ron Branson National JAIL4JudgesCommander-In-Chief Herein is a fatal flaw by omission within our Constitution, and…restore the power of the Grand Juries which our Founding Fathers originally intended by JAIL4Judges, and is found at…
    Ron Branson 16 May, 2013
  • …the Google Inc. legal department has already done. To this day, I never have seen a better attempt at an answer for the US, than Jail4Judges, its attempt to restore an institution of accusation where common citizens themselves are in charge. You have a worthy discussion…
    Ron Branson 10 May, 2013
  • Re: Judge’s Parking and Traffic Tickets By Ron Branson Nat’l JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief There is but one profession in which we theoretically arise at the sound…comes to being pulled over? As those reading my words should know, I am the author of the JAIL4Judges Initiative which is sought to become part of various State’s Constitutions. Should JAIL4Judge…
    Ron Branson 09 May, 2013
  • Dr. Cordero’s Critique of JAIL4Judges Critiqued By Dr. Les Sachs ——– Original Message ——– Subject: Why ICIJ – Cordero media strategy…lockdown and refuse to cover the story as Googl. Inc. gets convicted here in Europe. And you know how Jail4Judges itself has been greatly harmed by internet sabotage and attacks, in the efforts to prevent its message…
    Ron Branson 07 May, 2013
  • …Yes, I said, “YOU!” It is by the “David v. Goliath” method. “YOU” are the “David.” Little ole you, through the establishment of JAIL4Judges, can take on, for instance, the mega media in court seeking redress of grievances in court against “X”. (“X” herein shall be Viacom…
    Ron Branson 30 Apr, 2013
  • Message from Ron Branson National JAIL4Judges Founder VictoryUSA@^$1 The below link is a very important link that everyone should execute when they have the…to the creation of Independent Citizen Special Grand Juries throughout this country as presented at: Enjoy t he movie
    Ron Branson 29 Apr, 2013
  • If This Is Not Domestic Terrorism, W hat Is? Volumes of tanks and numerous men arrive armed with assault weapons wearing military regalia, carrying out forbidden military action in the streets of Watertown, Massachusetts, going house to house without a search warrant, and in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, “The right of the people to be secure in their…
    Ron Branson 25 Apr, 2013
  • …jobs, and thus we will reduce homelessness, and thus we will start the recovery of freedom, and thus ……! Ron Branson National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief VictoryUSA@^$1 Los Angeles settles…
    Ron Branson 24 Apr, 2013
  • The Federal Judicial Accountability and Integrity Legislation (a) Preamble. The House of Representatives and Senate Assembled find that an inordinate and ever-growing number of complaints of willful misconduct have been lodged with Congress involving federal judges across this nation; that the current Title 28 U.S.C. §372(c) (Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act) is in many…
    Ron Branson 20 Apr, 2013
  • …specially declared.” (Georgia Code, Section 45-3-10) This is just one example why we must passJAIL4Judges. Enforcing The Law, But Violating The Constitution…the United States. ” The full provisions of J.A.I.L. are provided for you here, . Under the J.A.I.L. Provisions who determines if any judge has deliberately violated…
    Ron Branson 10 Apr, 2013
  • AdChoices

    This new site makes it easy for anyone to search through someone’s Past online. Simply type in a name and select a state to start learning the Truth!

    InstantCheckmate Sponsored

  • …what is the point? My point is that the People will regain the plan wording of the Second Amendment when they decide to adopt the JAIL4Judges provision enforcing the pure words of the Constitution. Paragraph 2 of the California Judicial Accountability Initiative Law specifies…
    Ron Branson 08 Apr, 2013
  • …question is, when are the People going to wake up to the fact that they are running their heads into a brick wall without instituting JAIL4Judges through this available remedy. Even the U.S. Crimi nal Statutes of Title 18, Sec. 241 and 242 are us eless and impotent to the…
    Ron Branson 06 Apr, 2013
  • Do You Have An Answer? How do I expose Judicial Corruption in a current California case (Independant Action in Equity to secure relief from a Void Judgment of conviction on grounds of fraud upon the court amounting to “Extrinsic Fraud”). The conviction is a misdemeanor DUI case in which the California Dept. Of Motor Vehicles issued an Order of Set Aside. The Alameda County…
    Ron Branson 05 Apr, 2013
  • …to go after attorneys as our target. Early on within the J.A.I.L. Initiative, I contacted Congressman Ron Paul about sponsoring JAIL4Judges. I was contacted by a staff member expressing it is better that we focus more on attorneys. If we exercise discernment, we will…
    Ron Branson 03 Apr, 2013
  • …n to put an initiative on the ballot creating a special citizen friendly remedy to the now rampant judicial corruption, the “ Jail4Judges ” movement is now spreading like a fire in dry brush. In a campaign using e-mail and the internet, Jail4Judges is promoting a…
    Ron Branson 31 Mar, 2013
  • …ignore this ultimate power reserved only to us, and seek expensive inferior time-consuming political remedies. Ron Branson National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief VictoryUSA@^$3
    Ron Branson 28 Mar, 2013
  • Preparing for a Different Type of War Homeland Security Refuses to Answer! Marine Corp Four Star General James Amos tells his Marines to save ammo and prepare for a different kind of battle. As a Naval Aviator, Amos commanded the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 and 2004. He served as the 31st Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps from July 3…
    Ron Branson 27 Mar, 2013
  • …power is inherent in the People….They have the right to alter or reform it when the public good my require.” Ron Branson National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief VictoryUSA@^$1 ——– Original Message ——– Mister Branson, I must add a personal…
    Ron Branson 27 Mar, 2013
  • To The Constitution Club: Federal Judicial Accountability & Integrity Legislation (a) Preamble. The House of Representatives and Senate Assembled find that an inordinate and ever-growing number of complaints of willful misconduct have been lodged with Congress involving federal judges across this nation; that the current Title 28 U.S.C. §372(c) (Judicial Misconduct and Disability…
    Ron Branson 26 Mar, 2013
  • EXCELLENT MESSAGE FROM A VIRTUAL PRESIDENT ——– Original Message ——– Subject: MESSAGE FROM A VIRTUAL PRESIDENT Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:59:55 -0800 From: Jack Peach Excellent message from a Virtual President that needs to get out about the value of the Constitution of the United States (particularly as it applies to the Second Amendment) A 9 min. clip.;
    Ron Branson 02 Mar, 2013
  • …been my joy to respond to your very valid concern respecting our borders around America from the Word of God. Ron Branson National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief VictoryUSA@^$2 * * * ——– Original Message ——– Excellent, Ron. But I’m left with a question: How SHOULD…
    Ron Branson 28 Feb, 2013
  • …Constitution Give Em’ The Truth Anyway! By Ron Branson National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief On February 21st, I sent out a message…argument made by Henry Morgan of Florida that I should give upJAIL4Judges until after justice is obtained within the voting system…of the passage of judicial accountability as proposed by JAIL4Judges, and our opposition will spend unlimited funds to ditch the…
    Ron Branson 24 Feb, 2013
  • AdChoices

    Credit card companies are now offering 0% APR for 21 months for all purchases and balance transfers or 40k bonus miles ($400 bonus) and double miles. Sponsored

  • …to explain, or make sense of; J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) Declaration of Independence “…with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other…
    Ron Branson 10 Feb, 2013
  • …than two cops on the way. Ron Branson National J.A.I.L. 4 Judges Commander-In-Chief P.O. Box 207 North Hollywood, CA. 91603
    Ron Branson 07 Feb, 2013
  • Where Are We Now, And Where Are We Headed? Watch 8 min. video!
    Ron Branson 01 Feb, 2013
  • …! – Ron Branson J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) Declaration of Independence “…with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other…
    Ron Branson 25 Jan, 2013
  • …new Guards for their future security. ” Declaration of Independence * * * J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) Declaration of Independence “…with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other…
    Ron Branson 16 Jan, 2013
  • Our Founding Fathers On Gun Control It was Thomas Jefferson who said, “Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.” We are told that the People in L.A. are standing in line to give up their guns to the government. However, let it be known that it is documented that the government has staged fake Drug Busts before for media consumption. In other…
    Ron Branson 28 Dec, 2012
  • …2011/04/she-survived-hitler-and-wants-to-warn-america.html#ixzz2Fzr5YTU1 J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) Declaration of Independence “…with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other…
    Ron Branson 26 Dec, 2012
  • …This whole thing is getting kind of comical.” David Chanen • 612-673-4465 J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) Declaration of Independence “…with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other…
    Ron Branson 24 Dec, 2012
  • December 21, 2012 by Tim Brown SC Bill Takes Aim To Arm Public School Employees With Guns Years ago Texas began arming its teachers. Now more states are seeing it as a viable, and I might add, rational and logical option to letting kids and teachers simply be herded up and made victims of…
    Ron Branson 23 Dec, 2012
  • Hypocrisy of Gun Control Advocate Dianne Feinstein By Ron Branson VictoryUSA@^$1 According to the testimony of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, out of fear for her life, she carries a concealed weapon, and expresses a willingness to take down anyone who threatens her. Thus, relative to the Newtown, Ct. shooting scene, had Dianne been present within that school at the time, she would…
    Ron Branson 21 Dec, 2012
  • …kind and loving, and reason with armed criminals while they are blowing away innocent citizens. Ron Branson VictoryUSA@^$1
    Ron Branson 16 Dec, 2012
  • The Gold In Them Thare Hills Turned Out To Be Fool’s Gold As we all know, Governor Brown and the State of California was seeing dollar signs as a result of convincing the People to vote a tax increase in Prop 30. The California Teachers’ Association (CTA) trumpeted: “California students and working families won a clear victory today as voters clearly demonstrated their…
    Ron Branson 09 Dec, 2012
  • Approaching The Fiscal Cliff As we all know, Congress is wrestling with the oncoming January 1, 2013 fiscal cliff. The question, supposedly, on their table is whether they should raise the income tax level on the rich. While we all watch the debate between two sides is that the real financial debt we face is not even on the table. Even should Congress resolve the January 1, 2013…
    Ron Branson 28 Nov, 2012
  • Debt Without Consequences What happens when society no longer considers that debt has any meaning? After all, debt is only figure with a number of zeros behind it. Right? Does it really matter whether American’s owe a figure with fifteen zeros behind it, or twenty-one zeros? U.S. Treasurer Secretary Timothy Geithner thinks not. He said that Congress should just stop placing legal…
    Ron Branson 24 Nov, 2012
  • And You Thought You Had Seen It All Regarding Government Corruption You thought you had seen all the documentation, films, and had heard a total exhaustive presentation on September 11, 2001. That is what I thought too, but I was wrong. Below is the presentation of Susan Lindauer who worked as an insider for the CIA. Most everything you have heard has been post 911, (after the…
    Ron Branson 19 Nov, 2012
  • Counting The Cost To Stand For Freedom By Ron Branson Dear Brian Cregger: I wish to thank you for delving into an important issue within J.A.I.L., i.e., its enforcement. You suggest that an enforcement order should come from the Special Grand Jury itself. If you mean an official enforcement body such as the Special Grand Jury has their own Special Prosecutors, and their own Legal…
    Ron Branson 17 Nov, 2012
  • …Party, or and effort to reform the existing one. I wish to discuss matter. As the author of JAIL4judges, I am known for coming up with unique suggestions and answers. Obviously, I am here bias…what I am proposing? Ron Branson National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief VictoryUSA@^$1 www.JAIL4Judges.Org P.O. Box 207 North Hollywood, CA. 91603 PS – Should you need a reference, please contact…
    Ron Branson 16 Nov, 2012
  • …government guaranteed to us by Article IV, Sec. 4 of the United States Constitution. There can be no short cuts! Perhaps should JAIL4judges successfully becomes an Amendment to one of our state’s Constitutions, a challenge can be leveled by the People to reverse every…
    Ron Branson 15 Nov, 2012
  • …Time When We Must Just Shoot The Bastards by Ron Branson John Kotmair, than you for writing me about enforcement. Early on within JAIL4Judges I sought out knowledgeable souls familiar with law to act as “devil’s advocates.” I did not want these People to praise the work…
    Ron Branson 14 Nov, 2012
  • Five Thousand Years Ago Five thousand years ago, Moses said to the children of Israel, “Pick up your shovels, mount your asses and camels, and I will lead You to the Promised Land.” Nearly 75 years ago, (when Welfare was introduced) Roosevelt said, “Lay down your shovels, sit on your asses, and light up a Camel, this is the Promised Land.” Today, Congress has stolen our shovels…
    Ron Branson 14 Nov, 2012
  • Strike Zero – You’re Out! By Ron Branson Scott Huminski, it appears that the 9th Cir. is now adopting the very same Modus Op erendi as is employed by the U.S. Supreme Court, i.e. denying review without opinion. A I received was first a form letter from the Clerk of the Court stating intent to affirm the judgement below based upon the conclusion that the issues presented were…
    Ron Branson 13 Nov, 2012
  • …financially, and very soon. I am Ron Branson, author and founder of J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law), aka, . I am a man called of God as a Watchman on the Wall. My spiritual gift in the Body of Christ is that of discernment of spirits…
    Ron Branson 10 Nov, 2012
  • …accountable without interfering with their independence. This is why the premise of a People’s Special Grand Jury, as established by JAIL4Judges, is absolutely necessary to a future other than that of a Third World Nation. There is no other way than People-Control of the…
    Ron Branson 06 Nov, 2012
  • …accountable without interfering with their independence. This is why the premise of the the People’s Special Grand Jury as established by JAIL4Judges is absolutely necessary if America is to have a future other than that of a Third World Nation. There is no other way than People…
    Ron Branson 05 Nov, 2012
  • …independence of the Jury as intended by our Founding Fathers. Ironically, when we accomplished gettingJAIL4Judges on the ballot in South Dakota in 2006 for the People to vote upon, I was assailed by the enemy, which…courtroom trial, there is only one impartial participant. That is the jury — Ron Branson VictoryUSA@^$2
    Ron Branson 01 Nov, 2012
  • …and wrote the Taking Liberties section and Other People’s Money column for CBS News’ Web site. — Ron Branson VictoryUSA@^$1
    Ron Branson 28 Oct, 2012
  • …them for their crimes, and put them away in our determined places of detention. Thus, the conclusion goes, there is no need for JAIL4Judges, nor to we need Special Grand Juries, or the Initiative Process. All these measure for justice are unnecessary! But, of course…
    Ron Branson 19 Oct, 2012
  • …u_oz6kSnEZc&feature=relmfu Part 7: — Ron Branson VictoryUSA@^$1
    Ron Branson 15 Oct, 2012
  • …from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states.” — Ron Branson VictoryUSA@^$1
    Ron Branson 11 Oct, 2012
  • …give me death!” But today, we shout, “Give me Librium, or give me Meth!” I have been informed a number of times that the title “JAIL4Judges” was offensive, and that I should change it so as not to offend the judges in this country. Years ago I sought not to “offend…
    Ron Branson 10 Oct, 2012
  • …here in California.” I recommend, Patrick, you check-out what caused a national shake-up among the judiciary as a result of the JAIL4Judges work in the State of South Dakota, . If you had said “The judges within this nation find Ron Branson…
    Ron Branson 09 Oct, 2012
  • …and out of work, and we would love to receive only one-tenth of the salaries of these judges. — Ron Branson VictoryUSA@^$1
    Ron Branson 06 Oct, 2012
  • …anyone who, in their judgment, should be indicted and held for trial for corrupt acts. What JAIL4Judges seeks to do is make these powers openly recognized by all. However, there is one power we…except by US. This is precisely why we must install JAIL4Judges within all governments. The JAIL4Judges Initiative creates a Special Independent People’s Grand Jury of US. Access to this Special…
    Ron Branson 28 Sep, 2012
  • …the result can be rather negative. The court system is so dysfunctional right now, unless jail4judges is enacted immediately, it too will be disregarded as a “formality,” just as the law in general…No man can come to felony prosecution except by US. This is precisely why we must install JAIL4Judges within all governments. The JAIL4Judges Initiative creates a Special Independent People’s…
    Ron Branson 27 Sep, 2012
  • …unreviewable independent Grand Jury system. It is the Grand Jury power that must be restored to us at any cost! This is precisely what JAIL4Judges will accomplish, nothing more, and nothing less. The problem is, the People are too ignorant to recognize what they have done…
    Ron Branson 25 Sep, 2012
  • …People vs. government, it is the will of the People that must prevails This is precisely what JAIL4judgesassures when the People decide they want to take actually charge over their future affairs…we are now, searching for a remedy that does not involve the principles set forth within JAIL4Judges. So we now have this guy, Ron Branson, sitting by watching People get frustrated in looking…
    Ron Branson 22 Sep, 2012
  • Re: Hostile Take Over of the Name of JAIL4Judges Ron Branson ><> National JAIL4judges Commander-In-Chief…the State of South Dakota. We have held positions within JAIL4Judges all fifty states, Washington, DC, Australia, and Canada…absolutely no other operation on par with the objective of JAIL4judges. We are not a marketing business, but purely one of enforcing…
    Ron Branson 21 Sep, 2012
  • Computer Programmer Testimony He Was Requested to Write Code to Rig U.S. Elections Clinton Eugene Curtis, a computer programmer from Florida, testified before a congressional panel that there are computer programs that can be used to secretly fix elections. He explains how he created a prototype for Florida Congressman Tom Feeny that would flip the vote 51%-49% in favor of a…
    Ron Branson 18 Sep, 2012
  • …I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.” It is for the above reason God moved upon my heart to write the words found in JAIL4Judges. It is not to overthrow our Constitution, but rather to establish it. In Article I we have the Who, What, When, Where, and the…
    Ron Branson 17 Sep, 2012
  • …bonds and making them hundreds of millions of dollars at taxpayer’s expense. In my promotion under the First Amendment of cause JAIL4Judges in Van Nuys, CA. on “Courthouse Property,” I was run off by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office because I was told that I was…
    Ron Branson 13 Sep, 2012
  • …your money safe, grab your money and run. Find one who is going to charge you for his services. Ron Branson VictoryUSA@^$1
    Ron Branson 04 Sep, 2012
  • …next 2 or 3 weeks. Very interesting. Ron Branson VictoryUSA@^$1
    Ron Branson 31 Aug, 2012
  • The Tide Is Going Out On the Collapsing, Corrupt US Government When the tide goes out, it reveals a lot of ugliness that was hidden under water. In times of prosperity (or apparent prosperity), weakness, duplicity, and corruption is hidden from view or is deliberately overlooked…
    Ron Branson 23 Aug, 2012
  • The Satanic Planning of The Social Security System In the words of Colonel Edward Mandell House, in creating the Federal Reserve in 1913. “Very soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people…
    Ron Branson 23 Aug, 2012
  • …we be satisfied? Absolutely not! This is why I contend that we shall continue on our downward course until we the People enforce JAIL4Judges. There are thousands of unconstitutional laws on the books. Must we fight each and everyone piecemeal? And would not such wicked…
    Ron Branson 16 Aug, 2012
  • ” [T]he prosperity of fools shall destroy them. ” Proverbs 1:32 As we know that cities, counties, and states all around the U.S. are facing financial bankruptcy. They are crying out for funds. Nowhere is this situation more acute than in the Golden State of California. No justice or judge in this country is “earning” more than those sitting on the bench in California, who are…
    Ron Branson 15 Aug, 2012
  • …you free.” John 8:32. A couple years ago, as a result of the many truthful articles published, an attempt was made to eradicate JAIL4Judges‘ from the internet word. J.A.I.L’s computer was hacked into through some very high-tech work, and years of work was eradicated…
    Ron Branson 10 Aug, 2012
  • …ears to their plight by working within prescribed channels. Ron Zena Crenshaw wrote: Ron, I don’t say this to be critical, but Jail4Judges reflects such an exclusion of institutional support from government that it seems only anarchists or near anarchists could consider…
    Ron Branson 09 Aug, 2012
  • …people cursing all the way. The people are still looking for an answer that free shall never come. Ron Branson VictoryUSA@^$1 Steven Pattison wrote: Mr. Branson, I believe I should explain our only solution to what I wrote to you below. We have to believe…
    Ron Branson 31 Jul, 2012
  • …reliance on the honesty and integrity of our judicial system. Hence, your question is within the subject of the establishment of JAIL4Judges. When things get bad enough, maybe the People will pay attention to what I am saying. Until then, everyone is going to have to…
    Ron Branson 30 Jul, 2012
  • CNN iReport Is the Largest Judiciary in the Western World Crumbling? By althepal55 | Posted July 23, 2012 | Shasta County, California 7/25/12 – Update Alan Ernesto Phillips By all accounts the state of California has the largest judiciary in the Western world. Just the thought brings about visions of a colossal, well-oiled machine churning…
    Ron Branson 26 Jul, 2012
  • …the South Dakota Argus Leader. Those unfamiliar with the back ground of South Dakota and JAIL4Judgesmay be curious as to why I am particularly interested in this article, and why I am furthering…Whether it be classified as a nightmare, or not, it was definite truth that came to pass. Had JAIL4Judges passed in South Dakota, I can assure you that things would certainly be different today in…
    Ron Branson 20 Jul, 2012
  • Judging the Judges by Victoria Schlesinger | July 2012 This year as in past years, the state’s Commission on Judicial Performance published a report chronicling the bad behavior of California’s judges. And like previous surveys, what this year’s report shows most dramatically is how rarely judges are disciplined. As of 2011, there…
    Ron Branson 15 Jul, 2012
  • ABC Local Judge accused of stealing $1.6 million arraigned Alameda Co. judge accused of stealing $1.6M by Nick Smith BERKELEY, Calif. (KGO) — An Alameda County Superior Court judge has found himself on the wrong side of the law and is facing criminal charges. Judge Paul Seeman was arrested Thursday and…
    Ron Branson 17 Jun, 2012
  • Sweet Lies and Bitter Truth! Arnie, your questions and comments below take a number of twists and turns, but if I am understanding you correctly, you are right on point. The People are too dumb to know the lie from the truth. So as not to complicate matters, just accept the lies being fed to them. The is a book, the title of which correctly states the situation, “Sweet Lies and…
    Ron Branson 15 Jun, 2012
  • Fear of Police Presence May Be Cause For Reasonable Suspicion “[C]onduct designed to evade contact with police may itself establish reasonable suspicion.” State v. Starkey (S.D. Supreme Ct.) Have you ever realized that police were present, and you took evasive steps to avoid contact with them? In light of the current finding by the South Dakota Supreme Court that fearing police…
    Ron Branson 12 Jun, 2012
  • …Cedar St. San Diego, CA. 92101 (619) 515-1530 Judicial Insanity At Play! Gentlemen: I am Ron Branson [Judicial Accountability Initiative Law]. Attorney Gary L. Zerman, my associate, has suggested that…Cert. attached. Thank you very much. I look forward to hearing from you. Ron Branson VictoryUSA@^$1
    Ron Branson 09 Jun, 2012
  • Justice, Who Always Supported Police Action, Attacked By Police “I’ve always had profound respect for what they do,” Justice Raffaele said of the police, noting that he was “always very supportive” of the department during the more than 20 years he served …” Judge…
    Ron Branson 06 Jun, 2012
  • …Handbook Attached is the California Judges Contempt Handbook describing when contempt is appropriate or inappropriate. Gary L. Zerman, JAIL4Judges attorney, deems it appropriate that information be posted on the internet in light of how “Contempt of Court” is being thrown around…
    Ron Branson 02 Jun, 2012
  • California Fish & Game Challenged in Court When is the Law not the Law? This is the challenge asserted by Mr. Don Bird of Tehama County, California, in which he is cited for fishing in California. The California Constitution, Article I, Section 25 states as follows; “The People shall have the right to fish upon and from the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof…
    Ron Branson 01 Jun, 2012
  • Which Judges Should I Vote For? By Ron Branson Every election cycle I am approached as a supposed authority on judges to state a list of the judges for whom I recommend the electorate vote for. Just this past Saturday, April 26, 20012 I was approached by an attendee prior to my speech at a seminar of the judiciary to “Please state for us a short list of the judges they should vote…
    Ron Branson 29 May, 2012
  • The Soon Coming Economic World Collapse Audio Presentation by Pastor Lindsey Williams Back in the early 80’s when I pastored North Hollywood Bible Church, I invited Pastor Lindsey Williams in as a guest speaker. This was shortly after he had published his new book, “The Energy Non-Crisis.” We found him to be very sincere and an educated man of God, in which he testified that he…
    Ron Branson 28 May, 2012
  • Columbine Victims Cry Out for Exposure of the Truth! by Ron Branson – JAIL4Judges Yesterday, (Sunday afternoon) I traveled down from Los Angeles to Orange County to meet…the insurance industry. This warfare is documented blow by blow on the website of . I travel back to L.A. and after a night’s rest, I woke up and checked my emails…
    Ron Branson 28 May, 2012
  • Shawn Mooney wrote: Judges Say Bench Watchdog Should Be on Shorter Leash By Cheryl Miller Contact All Articles The Recorder May 4, 2012 Victoria Henley, Commission on Judicial Performance director Image: Jason Doiy/The Recorder SACRAMENTO — Tension between California’s jurists and the Commission on Judicial Performance? That’s nothing new. Fits of judicial pique against the…
    Ron Branson 21 May, 2012
  • Question Posed to Ron Branson “Do you have a suitable response for this? Arnie Rosner wrote: Mr. Branson, Do you have a suitable response for this? John Dummett is a candidate for president. Arnie Begin forwarded message: From: “John A. Dummett” < jdummett@^$1 > Subject: Re: Mr. Branson, may we call upon you for a simple solution? Date: May 10, 2012 9:59:11 AM PDT To…
    Ron Branson 10 May, 2012
  • Show Us a Simple Solution John, you have stated, ” JAIL does not directly accomplish, and probably will not indirectly “enable Americans to restore our Republic” as Arnie surmises.” You then ask my explanation as to how it might do otherwise. As you very well know, John, J.A.I.L., once established, requires John Doe Citizen to bring a complaint in court, or be drawn into court by…
    Ron Branson 09 May, 2012
  • Mr. Branson, may we call upon you for a simple solution by which we can restore our republic? I suspect most Americans would be eternally grateful! Arnie Rosner wrote: My Dear Mr. Branson, Thank you for sharing this very enlightening revelation with regard to the intentional violation of California State law by those whose job is to enforce the law. It appears in the case of Mr…
    Ron Branson 07 May, 2012
  • Christ’s Opinion On Lawyers “Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.” Luke 11:52 Below, lawyers praise one another on their great value to society! / Bar celebrates judicial system achievement Law Day speaker laments funding…
    Ron Branson 05 May, 2012
  • …legislator who wants to touch this J.A.I.L. legislation with a ten foot pole. But does that make it faulty? Nay! It says a lot for JAIL4Judges. Luke 6:26 says, “Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.” You will…
    Ron Branson 01 May, 2012
  • Rehnquist’s Creed: “If experience demands a presumption that a judge will seize every opportunity presented to him in the course of his official conduct to line his pockets, no canon of ethics or statute regarding disqualification can save our judicial system.” —Justice William Rehnquist Stalinist Creed: “Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes…
    Ron Branson 21 Apr, 2012
  • California Courts – Chief Justice Speaks on Effect of Budget Cuts Courts: The Judicial Branch of California · Judicial Branch Home · Courts … Chief Justice Speaks on Effect of Budget Cuts. Print. for release. Leanne Kozak … Message posted on website by Ron Branson: I have gained considerable practical knowledge of the inner-workings of the legal…
    Ron Branson 20 Apr, 2012
  • Josephn, you have asked, “Too bad we have not had members of Congress with the strength to put a halt to the usurpation of power taken by the judiciary. How would you get the judiciary back on track? ” This question has been asked over and over by thousands of conscientious People all over this nation. The answer is adoption of the Judicial Accountability and Integrity Legislation…
    Ron Branson 13 Apr, 2012
  • Super PACs Now Buying Judges, Too DUI Lawyers Blog Watch We all know the impact the Super PACs are having on who will be representing us in our state and national governments. Most senators, congressmen, governors, etc., are now pretty much bought-and-paid-for by Big Money’s deep pockets. This is largely thanks…
    Ron Branson 12 Apr, 2012
  • …Judiciary Back in 1995 the Lord moved upon the heart of Mr. Branson to compose what is now calledJAIL4Judges from his years of court experience. Unknown at the time, the Lord had Mr. Branson at the…doing. Not a thing negative. So, it became apparent that God’s leading in the writing of JAIL4Judges was cutting a new path within this country. Since that time, judicial expose sites have flourished…
    Ron Branson 08 Apr, 2012
  • …Government, the People must be the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last! This is precisely why Government greatly fears JAIL4Judges because it closes the loopholes within our Constitution, especially regarding judges and prosecutors . Ron Branson
    Ron Branson 08 Apr, 2012
  • …espousal of her doctrine of Judicial Independence. She denigrated Judicial Accountability with the words, “They even call it JAIL4Judges.” So, Sandra, where is your voice now that the issue of Judicial Independence is front and center within the news? Were we not…
    Ron Branson 06 Apr, 2012
  • The Legal System Screaming For Your Money – Save the Courts, or Lose Your Freedom Ron Branson * * * ABA (American Bar Association) No Courts, No Justice, No Freedom: 2012 Law Day…
    Ron Branson 27 Mar, 2012
  •;currentVideoInfo 60 Minutes March 25, 2012 Evidence of Innocence: The case of Michael Morton “I did not do this,” Michael Morton said as he was led away in handcuffs, convicted of murdering his wife in 1987. Hardly anyone believed him. Now, after twenty five…
    Ron Branson 26 Mar, 2012
  • …There are approximately four competitive organization here in CA. willing to accept a contract agreement with you. Ron Branson
    Ron Branson 26 Mar, 2012
  • Is Fraud a Way of Life in Our American Judicial System? The following Brief was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court on February 24, 2012, and entered upon the Docket March 1, 2012. Pursuant to Rule 15.3, the Court has given opposing counsel until Monday, April 02, 2012, ten days from today, to oppose this Brief. Please note that this matter is one of out and out fraud from its…
    Ron Branson 23 Mar, 2012
  • The Problem With Commissions By Ron Branson National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief All throughout America People are facing hopeless despair. They just do not know what to do. Well spoken are the words of Hosea the Prophet in Hosea 4:6, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee…” In hopes they may find a remedy…
    Ron Branson 19 Mar, 2012
  • A Crack In the Armor of The Judicial System By Ron Branson Below is breaking news about the former Chief Justice of the State of Alabama. For those of you who are unaware of the history of Judge Roy Moore, he was once the Chief Justice who sat on the Supreme Court of the State of Alabama who took a stand against the establishment over the issue of The Ten Commandments Monument…
    Ron Branson 15 Mar, 2012
  • America’s Greatest Criminals Wear Black Robes, Not Black Masks Below posted on the SacBee Newspaper Comments: America’s greatest criminals wear black robes, not black masks. I am currently in the U.S. Supreme Court over a case in which involves the County of Los Angeles creating a false and fraudulent Minute Order that states I was present and was arraigned on criminal charges in…
    Ron Branson 08 Mar, 2012
  • U.S. Military Program Arming Local Police Expands | Print | Written by Alex Newman Wednesday, 07 December 2011 Billions of taxpayer dollars are being used by the U.S. Department of Defense to provide military-grade weaponry to local law-enforcement departments, and the shadowy “ 1033…
    Ron Branson 29 Feb, 2012
  • Adam Greene Settles Police Beating Suit For $300,000: Nevada Officers Kicked Man In Diabetic Shock First Posted: 02/ 9/2012 4:32 PM Updated: 02/10/2012 12:23 PM Police dash-cam footage captures beating of Adam Greene by Nevada police. Submit this story Diggredditstumble A diabetic who was suffering from insulin shock when Nevada police officers mistook him for a drunk driver and…
    Ron Branson 16 Feb, 2012
  • Will Cameras Keep Our Judges Honest? It is contended that placing cameras in our courtrooms will keep our judiciary honest. Below is a presentation of this contention. NFOJA National Forum On Judicial Accountability A message to all members of NFOJA “The Times”, a local newspaper, would likely appreciate your comments on this subject which you can post on its website by clicking…
    Ron Branson 07 Feb, 2012
  • Judiciary Preserving Court Funding Will Require Effective Political Efforts by the Judiciary and Its Allies Posted Feb 4, 2012 7:04 PM CST By James Podgers < img src=”cid:part3.06050504.06010903@^$1″ alt=”Share” border=”0″ height=”16″ width=”171″> Whether they like it or not…
    Ron Branson 05 Feb, 2012
  • The News Behind The News It’s Worse Than You Think! I have just received word from former Attorney Brad Henschel, who covered the word from inside the judicial system on information not revealed within the below news article about the financial situation within the state courts of California. I have known Brad for 33 years. What’s that squawking I hear? Hmmm, I believe it’s the…
    Ron Branson 30 Jan, 2012
  • The Judicial Ship Taking On Water And Leaning To The Left “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:” Matthew 12:25 Editorial: Bill by dissident judges overreaches Share Published: Sunday, Jan. 29, 2012 – 12:00 am…
    Ron Branson 30 Jan, 2012
  • …on federal appeals, which I love to work on.” Roger Roots Roger Roots, I have a question for you. I am Ron Branson, founder of JAIL4Judges. I have taken cases up to the U.S. Supreme Court 14 times over the years since 1981. I am currently on my 15th trip. You responded…
    Ron Branson 20 Jan, 2012
  • …understand this frustration. But is there not a sane, calm, and reasonable response to the situation? Yes, I believe there is. It is JAIL4Judges! But there is not in every man that knowledge, and so their answer is to swing out into a greater circumference in hopes they may…
    Ron Branson 19 Jan, 2012
  • Comparing JAIL4Judges With All Other Proposals Dr. Joseph Zernik, what you have described below is about a good description of judicial…Prison Term After Initia… At 01:43 AM 1/14/2012, you wrote: Comparing JAIL4Judges to All Other Proposals The problem with political bodies handling the subject of judicial accountability, is…
    Ron Branson 17 Jan, 2012
  • …and allow for civil and criminal prosecution for judicial decisions, called bluntly enough JAIL4Judges, legislators have taken an interested in similar efforts. Simultaneous with this interest…and their business is an economic collapse. This occurred starting the very next year after jail4judges was rejected. According to this current news article, it appears that more was going on in…
    Ron Branson 13 Jan, 2012
  • Judicial Accountability & Integrity Legislation (Judicial Bill Written for Congress as Amended 11/24/01) Filed in the Library of Congress (a) Preamble. The House of Representatives and Senate Assembled find: that an inordinate and ever-growing number of complaints for willful misconduct have been lodged with Congress involving federal judges across this nation; that the current…
    Ron Branson 07 Jan, 2012
  • Wall Street Journal January 4, 2012, 9:27 AM Santorum Soundbites on the Judiciary, 10th Amendment By Joe Palazzolo AP Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum Rick Santorum’s loss-as-win in Iowa gives Law Blog a chance to take a look at his views on the Constitution and the judiciary…
    Ron Branson 05 Jan, 2012
  • On My Way To Get Justice, I Just Got Mugged! By Ron Branson National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief As all of you who have been to Las Vegas know, when you lay your money on the table, you get to throw the dice, or spin the wheel. In purchasing a Lotto Ticket, you stand a change of winning. It may be a long shot, but you are in the competitive pool with the others who likewise…
    Ron Branson 30 Dec, 2011
  • DANGEROUS JAILS: Part 1 – by Matthew Fleischer September 16th, 2011 by Celeste Fremon EDITOR’S NOTE: The article below is Part One of WitnessLA’s two-part investigation into the culture of violence and abuse that, for years, has been reported to exist inside the Los Angeles County Jail system…
    Ron Branson 28 Dec, 2011
  • Is judicial system part of the crime problem? Published 12:02am Sunday, December 18, 2011 TV viewers sit riveted to crime dramas and often begin to believe the shows are based in reality. In most crime dramas, the good guys win in the end and the bad guys go to prison. In reality, at least in…
    Ron Branson 19 Dec, 2011
  • Fraud & Corruption Appeal Filed 11/2/11 in Ninth Cir. Court of Appeals Ronald Branson 11245 Otsego St., #12 North Hollywood , CA. 91601 (818) 310-8999 Plaintiff Pro Se UNITES STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Ronald Branson, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES ; L.A.P.D. OFFICER KEVIN BAYONA; DOE 1/ aka Marvin Gross; DOE 2/ aka Melony Schoenberg; DOE 3/ aka…
    Ron Branson 04 Nov, 2011
  • The National Law Journal West may resell personal information of drivers, 7th Circuit rules Sheri Qualters Contact All Articles The National Law Journal September 30, 2011 The Sept. 28 unanimous panel ruling in Graczyk v. West Publishing Co…
    Ron Branson 06 Oct, 2011
  • Judiciary Court-Funding Crisis Is About Politics, Not Just Money, Erwin Chemerinsky Says Posted Sep 23, 2011 5:46 PM CDT By James Podgers Erwin Chemerinsky. Photo Courtesy of ABA Media Relations. The growing financial crisis facing state court systems has coincided with…
    Ron Branson 26 Sep, 2011
  • Hastings Law Journal Hastings Law Journal – Hastings College of the Law California Judiciary Slammed by Deep Budget Cuts This June, the state legislature cut the budget for California’s judicial system by $350 million for the fiscal year beginning July 1. This budget cut signifies a 6.7 percent…
    Ron Branson 16 Sep, 2011
  • Judges Digging Their Own Pit Sunday, June 24, 2007 By Ron Branson As corruption abounds more and more in the judiciary, so does the inclination to expose the actions of such judges. There is…
    Ron Branson 11 Sep, 2011
  • Judges mingle at La Costa amid budget cutbacks Other circuits curtail meetings; the 9th is off to Hawaii next year Enjoying the buffet breakfast are Bridget Bade, at left, a lawyer representative from Arizona, and Robert Lasnik, at right, a Chief District Judge from Seattle — Charlie…
    Ron Branson 18 Aug, 2011
  • Access to Grand Juries Spartacus – OneManWreckingCrew wrote: Ron, Nice job at: I don’t see a search function. Do you have any articles or advice for those of us who wish to bring charges against govt officials…
    Ron Branson 29 Jul, 2011
  • …be, and such “legislation” is void the very moment it is “made.” Ron Branson Author: Judicial Accountability Initiative Law VictoryUSA@^$1
    Ron Branson 25 Jul, 2011
  • California’s courts endure third year of cuts By PAUL ELIAS The Associated Press Posted: 07/23/2011 08:02:11 AM PDT Updated: 07/23/2011 10:59:28 AM PDT SAN FRANCISCO—This county’s presiding superior court judge stood at the lectern and looked out at the bank of television cameras and assembled press. She took a deep breath. “This is…
    Ron Branson 24 Jul, 2011
  • San Francisco to shutter courtrooms, lay off 200 By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press – 9 hours ago SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The San Francisco Superior Court announced Monday that it’s laying off more than 40 percent of its staff and shuttering 25 courtrooms because of…
    Ron Branson 18 Jul, 2011
  • What is U.S. Government Operation “Fast and Furious”? It is an objective by the U.S. Government to use taxpayer money to create a “crime” problem so massive that citizens of this country beg for the collection of all their weapons in the name of peace and safety. – Ron Branson ——————————————————————————— US government openly…
    Ron Branson 14 Jul, 2011
  • Get Out Your Hankie. It is Being Reported That Certain Judges Are Surviving on the Brink of Poverty. New York’s Lagging Judicial Pay Published: July 11, 2011 kedin Digg MySpace Permali Across the country, judicial salaries are falling woefully behind what is needed to sustain a high-quality justice system. The problem is…
    Ron Branson 13 Jul, 2011
  • Caution: Driving May Result in Death! Small mountain community around Big Bear Lake in uproar over the killing of one of their own long-time residents by San Bernadino Sheriff Deputies over traffic stop. Woman handcuffed and stripped totally naked by policemen over traffic stop. http…
    Ron Branson 11 Jul, 2011
  • …the Constitution. The fraud must go on!” As I see it, there are but only two remedies to the instant situation. Either we place JAIL4Judges on the ballot ( ) or the judiciary goes entirely broke. We are well on the way to the latter. The battle lines…
    Ron Branson 07 Jul, 2011
  • Opposition to Presiding Judge Kirschner’s Letter Ronald Branson 11245 Otsego St., #12 North Hollywood , CA. 91601 Superior Court County of Los Angeles 14400 Erwin St. Mall Van Nuys, CA. 91401 In the matter of: CITATION # 83267NR v. Ronald Branson ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Ronald Branson’s Opposition to letter dated June 17, 2011 from Judge Richard Kirschner; Recusal of Commissioner…
    Ron Branson 30 Jun, 2011
  • Metropolitan News-Enterprise Thursday, June 16, 2011 Page 1 Lawmakers Pass Budget, Cut Another $150 Million From Courts From Staff and Wire Service Reports California’s Democratic-controlled Legislature voted yesterday to cut $150 million from the state’s courts, over and above the $200 million previously proposed by Gov…
    Ron Branson 17 Jun, 2011
  • “Congress shall make no law…” “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion…” Article I, United States Constitution. This restrictive forbearance concerning government religion is still in our Constitution today. But has the U.S. government obeyed this restraint from establishing an official government religion? The following is not only interesting on…
    Ron Branson 17 May, 2011
  • “We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts that we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and amusements, for our callings and creeds … we will have no time to think, no means of calling our mismanagers to…
    Ron Branson 19 Apr, 2011
  • …Appellate Court’s void judgment, but also to take action against each of them. What a joke the entire court system is! Ron Branson VictoryUSA@^$1 P.O. Box 207 North Hollywood, CA. 91603
    Ron Branson 14 Mar, 2011
  • It is Time to Close Down the Courts The Courts are Bringing Anarchy to Our Country Ron Branson When the City can use law enforcement officials to nab victims off the streets, shove them through a criminal process without neither notice to appear, nor allowing their mark to appear and answer to the charges, and such conduct is upheld on appeal under the alleged theory that they…
    Ron Branson 28 Feb, 2011
  • Richard I. Fine Released From Jail As many of you may already know, Richard Fine was jailed for embarrassing the entire judicial system with the County of Los Angeles. He exposed the judicial system publicly pointing out the all of the judges in the County of Los Angeles were on the take from the county. While the judges were already raking in a mega salary of close to $180,000 a… 24 Sep, 2010
  • …little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?” I Corinthians 5:6 Ron Branson National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief VictoryUSA@^$1 “On Monday, Porteous’ lead attorney, Jonathan… 14 Sep, 2010
  • …ever be able to free ourselves for this judicial quagmire. Ron Branson National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief VictoryUSA@^$2 14 Sep, 2010
  • …endeavor of providing for an effective impeachment process, I recommend the improvements of Federal J.A.I.L as set forth on www jail4judges org. It provides for a Special Federal Grand Jury to indict federal judges when they are found to have willfully violated their… 14 Sep, 2010
  • Court Rules: Fourth Amendment Does Not Apply to Cell Phones By Ron Branson – VictoryUSA@^$1 The below article from CNET unveils a new revelation by the judges as it relates to cell phone use. It is true that our Founding Fathers never conceived of the use of cell phones on December 15, 1791 when they signed off on the Fourth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution. Nonetheless, it is… 07 Sep, 2010
  • …Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Forwarded by VictoryUSA@^$1 06 Sep, 2010
  • …Humor to Get a Serious Point Across By KJS (aka Kirk Schwoebel) kjs420@^$1 We’ve got to get this (JAIL4Judges) passed, we’re running out of time. The cancer of judicial corruption has metastasized in Los Angeles…vital organs. If symptoms persist, discontinue use and contact a doctor). Ask your physician ifJAIL4judges is right for you. (Take only as directed) KJS 04 Sep, 2010
  • “A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.” – Edward R. Murrow 04 Sep, 2010
  • …and sacrifice one of their own for the sake of the whole. Ron Branson National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief VictoryUSA@^$1 04 Sep, 2010
  • …hear from certain politicians! ><> Ron Branson National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief Los Angeles, California VictoryUSA@^$1 03 Sep, 2010
  • …answer to the problem that appropriately protects both judicial independence and judicial accountability which is set forth on (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law – J.A.I.L.). The citizen’s of the State of Iowa are now facing the very same concerns… 02 Sep, 2010
  • …People restore the freedom envisioned by our Founding Fathers. Ron Branson National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief VictoryUSA.@^$1 01 Sep, 2010
  • …Special Grand Jury to establish when judicial immunity shall apply. Ron Branson National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief VictoryUSA@jail4judgesorg 31 Aug, 2010
  • Wall Street Journal SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 The Threat to Judicial Independence BY SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR In November, South Dakotans will vote on a state constitutional amendment being advocated by a national group called “JAIL 4 Judges.” If the amendment passes, it would eliminate judicial… 28 Aug, 2010
  • …googlenews_wsj This judicial warfare against the Constitution, the laws, and the judicial Oath of Office is set forth at . It will not be until the People awaken as to what is going on with the judiciary and set forth to establish an Independent… 28 Aug, 2010
  • …Special Citizens’ Grand Jury be created to avoid all the potential governmental conflicts that are inherent in Grand Juries. has meticulously set forth just how this must be done point by point, including dealing with the federal judiciary. Ron Branson… 26 Aug, 2010
  • …Internet Your article re: Online Safe Haven in Sweden sounds interesting in light of what is going on here in America. The website exposing judicial corruption and proposing a nationwide remedy through the initiative process was pulled from the internet… 24 Aug, 2010
  • …the question of whether the Proponents of Prop 8 have standing. Federal Judges Vaughn Walker says they do not. As the founder of JAIL4Judges I wish to check in on this debate. In the U.S. Supreme Court Case of Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U.S. 274 the Court issued a scathing… 17 Aug, 2010
  • Report: Judicial spending doubles in last decade Posted: Aug 15, 2010 9:10 PM PDT Updated: Aug 16, 2010 1:30 AM PDT By GREG BLUESTEIN Associated Press Writer Campaign fundraising for elections to the nation’s top state courts has doubled to more than $200 million over the last decade, fueled partly by super-spending individuals and… 16 Aug, 2010
  • Critique of JAIL4Judges Let…Kagan on this incredible achievement. Comment by Ron Branson – August 16, 2010 @7:32 pm As the Founder of JAIL4Judges, and having been notified of the above comments regardingJAIL4Judges and the subject matter of judicial immunity… 16 Aug, 2010
  • …determine who can and who cannot use the internet. I suggest that all of you who have the knowledge and the ability to download the and websites do so as a measure to preserve this data. J.A.I.L. has many enemies who wish nothing more… 19 Jul, 2010
  • …would you do that?” I to her “You said that Ronald George knows me, so I thought we should get together and discuss getting JAIL4Judges passed here in California .” She did not crack a smile. Anyway, below you will see Ronald George mourning the closures of his…
    JAIL4Judges 14 Sep, 2009
  • …it becomes necessary from time to time to remind people of the need for financial support. JAIL4Judges is no different. The J.A.I.L. Constitution & By-Laws,…J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) , has been in existence since 1995, and is in all 50 states and foreign countries. To…
    JAIL4Judges 13 Sep, 2009
  • How Much Justice Can You Afford? By Walter Buller – giembryo@^$1 Years ago, while still living at home, my baby brother, then age 17, got caught taking part in an armed robbery. This was his second felony arrest. He was the getaway driver. My Mother’s lawyer told her of a high powered lawyer that could “take care of it.” She got in touch with him, and gave him his reduced asking…
    JAIL4Judges 13 Sep, 2009
  • …Mike Duvall campaign office ______________________________________________ J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) , has been in existence since 1995, and is in all 50 states and foreign countries. To manage your email, place the word Subscribe…
    JAIL4Judges 11 Sep, 2009
  • …Do it for the children! ______________________________________________ J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) , has been in existence since 1995, and is in all 50 states and foreign countries. To manage your email, place the word Subscribe…
    JAIL4Judges 04 Sep, 2009
  • …Press. All Rights Reserved.) ______________________________________________ J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) , has been in existence since 1995, and is in all 50 states and foreign countries. To manage your email, place the word Subscribe…
    JAIL4Judges 03 Sep, 2009
  • …2009 Rasmussen Reports, LLC ______________________________________________ J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) , has been in existence since 1995, and is in all 50 states and foreign countries. To manage your email, place the word Subscribe…
    JAIL4Judges 31 Aug, 2009
  • …prolonged. Proverbs 28:2. ______________________________________________ J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) , has been in existence since 1995, and is in all 50 states and foreign countries. To manage your email, place the word Subscribe…
    JAIL4Judges 29 Aug, 2009
  • …From: Diane Johnson [mailto:flutend@^$1] Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 10:08 PM To: JAIL4JudgesSubject: Re: * * * DEAR ROBERT * * * Dear JAIL for Corrupt: Would you know of any lawyer…From: Robert L. Cheney Jr. [mailto:cheney5512@^$5] Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 7:25 AM To: JAIL4Judges Subject: Unlawful Arrest by Court Dear Jail4Judges: Hello. My name is Robert L. Cheney Jr…
    JAIL4Judges 26 Aug, 2009
  • …of your work there in the State of New Mexico . Much of the complaints we receive here at JAIL4Judgesregards the Family Courts around the nation. The reason, I believe, is because of the proximity…VictoryUSA@^$2 From: YouJudge Tv [mailto:youjudgetv@^$3] Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 8:08 AM To: JAIL4Judges Subject: Hi. Mr. Branson, I am a board member of the New Mexico Center for Family Justice…
    JAIL4Judges 21 Aug, 2009
  • …Convention, 1829-1830 (pp. 616, 619), O’Donoghue v. U.S. , 289 U.S. 516 (1933). J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) , has been in existence since 1995, and is in all 50 states and foreign countries. To manage your email, place the word Subscribe…
    JAIL4Judges 20 Aug, 2009
  • …confidential files had been granted. ______________________________________________ J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) , has been in existence since 1995, and is in all 50 states and foreign countries. To manage your email, place the word Subscribe…
    JAIL4Judges 18 Aug, 2009
  • …response below – VictoryUSA@^$1 ) From: Robert L. Cheney Jr. [mailto:cheney5512@^$2] Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 7:25 AM To: JAIL4Judges Subject: Unlawful Arrest by Court Dear Jail4Judges: Hello. My name is Robert L. Cheney Jr., and I have been in the Father’s Rights…
    JAIL4Judges 14 Aug, 2009
  • …Newsmax. All rights reserved. ______________________________________________ J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) , has been in existence since 1995, and is in all 50 states and foreign countries. To manage your email, place the word Subscribe…
    JAIL4Judges 13 Aug, 2009
  • U.S. Transition From Socialism To Communism The distinction between Socialism and Communism is the same as the distinction between seduction and rape – in either case, you will be screwed in the end! “When we see the federal government buying up the stock in the major industrial companies of the US , this is no longer government control (aka – socialism), but government…
    JAIL4Judges 08 Aug, 2009
  • …in the name of “peace.” ______________________________________________ J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) , has been in existence since 1995, and is in all 50 states and foreign countries. To manage your email, place the word Subscribe…
    JAIL4Judges 06 Aug, 2009
  • …Amendment in our Constitution. ______________________________________________ J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) , has been in existence since 1995, and is in all 50 states and foreign countries. To manage your email, place the word Subscribe…
    JAIL4Judges 05 Aug, 2009
  • …Ron Branson VictoryUSA@^$1 ______________________________________________ J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) , has been in existence since 1995, and is in all 50 states and foreign countries. To manage your email, place the word Subscribe…
    JAIL4Judges 05 Aug, 2009
  • —–Original Message—– From: rich mckee [mailto:seven77out@^$1] Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 9:40 AM To:JAIL4Judges Subject: Re: * * * The Federal Reserve T.A.R.P. Conspiracy * * * I love you sounding the alarm, Ron, and keep it up. The typical…
    JAIL4Judges 31 Jul, 2009
  • The Federal Reserve Conspiracy of T.A.R.P. We have been told that T.A.R.P. (Troubled Asset Recovery Plan) was created to save the collapsing American economy because the banks could no longer make loans to Americans. A $700,000,000,000 Bailout Bill of Main Street’s money [you and I] was rushed through Congress with no time to read it to meet this national “emergency.” But…
    JAIL4Judges 31 Jul, 2009
  • …SoCal_Judges_Los_Angeles.html ______________________________________________ J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) , has been in existence since 1995, and is in all 50 states and foreign countries. To manage your email, place the word Subscribe…
    JAIL4Judges 29 Jul, 2009
  • …government accountable? Does anyone have a solution? Mark Adams Answer offered by henrymorgan@^$4 Sure Mark, right here: Reply by Mark Adams: Close, Henry . Actually, there are 3 really…
    JAIL4Judges 29 Jul, 2009
  • …7w4f04zrF2s&feature=player_embedded ______________________________________________ J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) , has been in existence since 1995, and is in all 50 states and foreign countries. To manage your email, place the word Subscribe…
    JAIL4Judges 28 Jul, 2009
  • …and the publication presented of late of the unthinkable of “Bulldozing America.” Therein I stated, as quoted in , “[T]he entire middle-class is planned to be obliterated, including you who are influential…
    JAIL4Judges 25 Jul, 2009
  • …news/51196597.html?viewAll=y ______________________________________________ J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) , has been in existence since 1995, and is in all 50 states and foreign countries. To manage your email, place the word Subscribe…
    JAIL4Judges 24 Jul, 2009
  • JAILers4Justice (J4J) ____________________________________________________________ Los Angeles , CA July 23, 2009 A Public Service Announcement to America (To be removed from this PSA see instructions below) ____________________________________________________________ The Battle Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power A Power Foreign to Our Constitution…
    JAIL4Judges 23 Jul, 2009
  • …broken bones in her feet. …. ______________________________________________ J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) , has been in existence since 1995, and is in all 50 states and foreign countries. To manage your email, place the word Subscribe…
    JAIL4Judges 23 Jul, 2009
  • …Angeles. © Thomson Reuters 2009 ______________________________________________ J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) , has been in existence since 1995, and is in all 50 states and foreign countries. To manage your email, place the word Subscribe…
    JAIL4Judges 22 Jul, 2009
  • …every time I hear this music independent of Stang as it became synonymous with Stang in my mind. The year following the founding of JAIL4Judges (1995) I invited Alan to be our speaker at one of our J.A.I.L. meetings which we held in the back of the Denny’s Restaurant on…
    JAIL4Judges 22 Jul, 2009
  • …ARA money involved in this.” ______________________________________________ J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) , has been in existence since 1995, and is in all 50 states and foreign countries. To manage your email, place the word Subscribe…
    JAIL4Judges 15 Jul, 2009
  • …Ron Branson VictoryUSA@^$2 ______________________________________________ J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) , has been in existence since 1995, and is in all 50 states and foreign countries. To manage your email, place the word Subscribe…
    JAIL4Judges 14 Jul, 2009
  • …Ron Branson VictoryUSA@^$2 ______________________________________________ J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) , has been in existence since 1995, and is in all 50 states and foreign countries. To manage your email, place the word Subscribe…
    JAIL4Judges 13 Jul, 2009
  • 60 Minutes on Swine Flue Vaccinations 1979 CBS 60 Minutes episode Re: 1976 swine flu pandemic. This episode was banned after its first showing on television. (16 minutes in length) Currently, the plan is to force the weaponized “swine flu” vaccine on the most vulnerable segment of our population …
    JAIL4Judges 12 Jul, 2009
  • …Ron Branson VictoryUSA@^$3 ______________________________________________ J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) , has been in existence since 1995, and is in all 50 states and foreign countries. To manage your email, place the word Subscribe…
    JAIL4Judges 09 Jul, 2009
  • …through our Initiative Process as set forth in the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.) such as found at “ If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do…
    JAIL4Judges 07 Jul, 2009
  • RESOLUTION OF THE PATRIOT MOVEMENT UNITED (5/15/09) We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the…
    JAIL4Judges 02 Jul, 2009
  • …Kristi Devine [mailto:devinekristi@^$1] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 12:10 AM To: kirk beck; JAIL4JudgesCc: JAIL4Judges Subject: Re: * * * Of Apples and Oranges * * * Dear Ron: I so subscribe to…accountability over judicial immunity by an independent, autonomous citizen’s Grand Jury. ( -Ron Branson – the crazy guy with radical principles of right and wrong. VictoryUSA…
    JAIL4Judges 02 Jul, 2009
  • …09) I sent out a publication under the title of “California Going Broke.” Therein, I appealed to an illustration of apples and…accountability over judicial immunity by an independent, autonomous citizen’s Grand Jury. ( ) -Ron Branson – the crazy guy with radical principles of right and wrong. VictoryUSA…
    JAIL4Judges 29 Jun, 2009
  • Have the Seeds for Depopulation of Earth by the New World Order Begun in America ?
    JAIL4Judges 27 Jun, 2009
  • …emergency response programs. ______________________________________________ J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) , has been in existence since 1995, and is in all 50 states and foreign countries. To manage your email, place the word Subscribe…
    JAIL4Judges 27 Jun, 2009
  • …VictoryUSA@^$2 —–Original Message—– From: Kristi Devine [mailto:devinekristi@^$3] Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 5:59 AM To: JAIL4Judges Subject: RE: Taking Baby-Steps in Establishing Judicial Accountability Ron: EVERYTHING you say and do makes perfect sense to me…
    JAIL4Judges 26 Jun, 2009
  • …From: James McErlean [mailto:geothermal09@^$2] Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 9:40 AM To: JAIL4JudgesSubject: Judicial Accountability Hello, I was wondering if smaller steps might not make the…for those who have never read J.A.I.L. You may read the entire Initiative at; By practical application of…
    JAIL4Judges 23 Jun, 2009