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


FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

ON TRIAL AGAIN, US SUPREME COURT,

 LOUDERMILK V. JOSEPH 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

http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/az/Loudermilkpetition2015.pdf

History of the Homeschool League Defense/Loudermilks’ Case 

http://www.hslda.org/legal/cases/loudermilk.asp

For more on this story, read  Bob Unruh’s reporting for WND,  Supremes Asked to Rein-in-Kid-Grabbing Enforcers, at   http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/07/supremes-asked-to-rein-in-kid-grabbing-enforcers/.

Notes

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

(PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

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.

  • CENSORSHIP WILL BE PROSECUTED AS IT IS A FEDERAL OFFENSE IN America, THE LAWS TO WHICH YOU WILL BE HELD ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!
  • (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,” https://youtu.be/Ql9vcE29puU];[http://aanirfan.blogspot.com/2015/04/jonah-rief-child-trafficking-satanic.html];[https://honestyisthebestapproach.wordpress.com/tag/tammy-rief/]; [http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=7015]; [http://judiciallies.blogspot.com/2014/09/jonah-rief-one-of-many-cases-cloaked-in.html]; [ Tammy’s police report, http://www.scribd.com/doc/214078952/Police-Report-in-Tammy-Rief-s-case];[ http://stolenintoterror.blogspot.com/2014/09/jonah-rief-trafficked-to-terrorists.html].

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. [https://youtu.be/f21F79cR7ug].

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.

FROM WOMB TO TOMB

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.

THE FOSTER CARE PRISON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

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.

What?!

PIGS AT A TROUGH

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.

A HEALTHY DOSE OF MURDER

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.

BRT/HSN

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: http://bit.ly/JonahsAbuse]

• 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:
https://www.facebook.com/events/265231733654901/

Link to event re: declaring Tammy mentally incompetent:
https://www.facebook.com/events/647720755265517/

*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

(PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

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.

  • CENSORSHIP WILL BE PROSECUTED AS IT IS A FEDERAL OFFENSE IN America, THE LAWS TO WHICH YOU WILL BE HELD ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!
  • (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.

CORRUPT JUDGES


 

Revolting Judges

by Dr. Carl Bernofsky

Fearful of a growing backlash from the public against arbitrary, prejudiced, and even malicious judgments that are protected by judicial immunity, judges have banded together under government sponsorship to devise means of defending themselves from aggrieved and increasingly militant pro-se litigants.

 
Continuing Education Credit Prejudices Judges
JUNE WISNIEWSKI
     My name is June Wisniewski. I live in Reno, Nevada, about two miles from the National Judicial College, the non-profit organization that trains judges, and grew up in Linden, New Jersey.
     Here is John Boyle, the judge who went on Fox News twice and talked about my case,In the Matter of Joseph Wisniewski, Sr., Docket No. J-1733. Judge John Boyle called me a quack, a loser, and a mental case, but admitted that I had money due and owning me in a civil case.
     On another videotape, Boyle stated that his father introduced him to the Mafia when he was twelve years old, and made sure that he did not have his picture taken with any Mafia leader. Boyle went into detail on how money was confiscated from poor persons, and stated that the Mafia was all about the money, and not about the fellowship.
     Judge John M. Boyle accepted a bribe in the case, In the Matter of the Estate of Joseph Wisniewski, Sr., and fradulently concealed over $140,000 improperly paid to the attorney, Walter A. Kipp, of Rutherford, NJ. Boyle arranged with the Administrator of the estate, Joe Wisniewski, Jr., of McLean, VA, and his attorney, Kipp, to substitute $250,000 worth of bogus, bankrupt, junk bonds that were not part of my father’s estate instead of cash or actual assets. The State of New Jersey supports the fradulent concealment of estate assets in selected cases.http://judicialterrorism.blogspot.com/2009/07/here-is-judge-who-went-on-fox-news.html
      This book, along with Dealing With Common Law Courts: A Model Curriculum for Judges and Court Staff, published in 1997 by NCSC, was developed from an Institute for Course Management (ICM) course on dealing with common law courts, held in Scottsdale, Arizona, February 5-7, 1997.

     The curriculum and manuals for this course were prepared with a grant from the State Justice Institute: Award No. SJI-96-02B-B-159, “The Rise of Common Law Courts in the United States: An Examination of the Movement, the Potential Impact on the Judiciary, and How the States Could Respond.

     The State Justice Institute (SJI) is a non-profit, 501C(3) corporation that was started in 1986 and funded by Congress to develop courses and training manuals for state courts and judicial training organizations.This course and training manuals were developed by a group of 27 judges, court clerks, court administrators, and prosecutors in Arizona who examined the history and procedures of the Common Law Court Movement (CLC) and created the training curriculum and responses that courts, judges, and court administrators can use when dealing with common law courts in their own jurisdictions.

     My contact at the conference said that one of its goals was to identify ways the courts can make preemptive strikes against the CLC movement.Some of the keynote speakers who helped produce the CLC course in Arizona were Chief Justice Thomas Moyer of Columbus, Ohio, T.C. Brown of Columbus, Ohio (a reporter for theCleveland Plain Dealer), and Jonathan Mozzochi, Executive Director of the Coalition for Human Dignity in Seattle, Washington. Mozzochi, who distributed Guns and Gavels, a publication of the Coalition, was listed as “a nationally recognized expert on militias and hate group activity.”

     The Coalition is like a west coast version of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).I originally found out about this course by watching a videotaped session of the 1996 combined conference of the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) and the Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA), held in Nashville, Tennessee in the summer of 1996 and called “Impact of the Common Law Court Movement on the Courts.”

     More than 50 state supreme court justices and state court administrators attended the Tennessee conference. The CLC session was taped with a grant from SJI. Keynote speakers were Michael Reynolds, senior intelligence analyst for the SPLC, and James Reynolds, chief of the Terrorism and Violent Crime Section, U.S. Department of Justice.

     The panel discussion included Susan Hansen, senior reporter with American Lawyer, Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Moyer (past president of CCJ), Utah Supreme Court Justice Michael Zimmerman, and Judges Jeffrey Langton and Gregory Mohr from Montana.

     The taped session was more than three hours long. At the end of the session, one of the speakers mentioned that there was funding for additional CLC conferences. I immediately called ICM, located at NCSC in Virginia, and asked about the additional CLC conferences. My contact told me that a Scottsdale conference was going to take place in about three days. Since those two conferences, there have been additional conferences sponsored by SJI with other organizations.

     SJI sponsored a conference with the American Judicature Society in Scottsdale, Arizona in November, 1999 that was closed to the public and the press. There will also be an ICM course in Orlando, Florida on February 5-7, 2001 called “Increasing Access to Justice for pro-se Litigants,” with that organization’s perception of what “access” means.

     “Constitutionalists in Court” was held in the St. Paul-Minneapolis, Minnesota area in the summer of 2000 by the National Judicial College (NJC) of Reno, Nevada, and the same course was held again November 13-14, 2000, also at NJC in Reno. This course discusses the history of protest movements affecting the judiciary, identifies typical challenges and ways to handle them, anticipates courtroom security needs, and plans solutions and strategies.

     NJC, together with the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), conducted a survey, developed material for their courses from SJI materials and grants, and published a brief report called “Right-Wing Extremist Challenges to the Authority and Jurisdiction of the Court” in 1998.

     This course and report contains a preemptive plan against pro-se litigants and others who may disagree with the court, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Native American protest groups, religious organizations, and anyone else who may take issue with a court decision. The information from NJC is so controversial that NJC has banned its course and conference materials from the public, but their library and the SJI repository is open to the public.

     I originally started researching judicial training organizations in 1996 after I was denied an inheritance by the New Jersey court system when my parents died and was also denied entrance to a conference and course materials at NJC in May, 1996, called “The National Conference on the Media and the Courts: Working Together to Serve the American People.”

     The media conference was closed to the public. Only one New Jersey judge, Martin Kravarick, attended that conference. Judge Kravarick was elected president of the American Judges Association (AJA), a judge’s organization under NCSC. AJA publishes a quarterly journal called Court Review, available in your local law library, by subscription, or through interlibrary loan.

     I first found out about the judicial movement against pro-se litigants and the CLC movement by reading Kravarick’s “President’s Message” in the Fall, 1996 issue of Court Review. I called Judge Kravarick for more information on what the CLC movement was all about, and he gave me some additional contact information. I called Mike Reynolds of SPLC, and he told me there were four conference proceedings and that the conference was taped.

      I waited over three months to get a copy of the tape, “Impact of the Common Law Movement on the Courts.” That tape is available through interlibrary loan from NCSC along with the training manuals mentioned above.Each state has an SJI repository for all publications put out by the organizations they have funded. For example, the repository in Nevada is at NJC in Reno.

     In New Jersey, the SJI repository is at the New Jersey State Library in Trenton. You can check out these training manuals with a New Jersey library card. You can also find out where your SJI repository is by looking it up on the Internet at http://www.statejustice.org, by calling SJI at 703-684-6100, or by writing to the State Justice Institute, 1650 King street, Alexandria, VA 22314.SJI is funded by Congress with your tax dollars.

     If you don’t like the courses and materials they are funding, you can write to your senator or congressman, or directly to SJI and ask them to stop funding these materials. SJI gets very few letters from the public, and I’m sure they would love to hear from you. When you get to their Web site, read and download the newsletters. Most of their new grants are in their newsletters.The National Center for State Courts is an umbrella organization for several judges’ organizations such as the National College of Probate judges (NCPJ), AJA, CCJ, COSCA, ICM and others.

      I have been a member of NCPJ since 1996 and have attended four judges’ conferences. The most controversial and harmful material against the public is coming from NJC and NCSC materials, two agencies that compete with each other for SJI and federal government funding.In the training manuals mentioned above, there are two sections in each book where the writers advise judges and court personnel such as court clerks and guards on how to handle pro-se litigants using a step-by-step process. The writers of these manuals reveal a court that is biased and has a dangerous point of view about justice and equal access in the court system.

Copyright © 2001 June Wisniewski

The Author:  June Wisniewski is a legal researcher and journalist in Reno, Nevada, and can be reached at renojune@judicialterrorism.com.  She has written a number of articles on judicial subjects and is author of the book, The Coffin Chasers: An Aggrieved Litigant’s Journey Through the Corrupt World of Probate The source of this article is the January 5, 2001 issue of the Idaho Observer (http://proliberty.com/observer/20010105.htm)

The text has been modified by reformating and other nonconsequential editing and is noted as such at the request of the author.  The subject matter is the basis of another book by Wisniewski, Unequal Justice: The Inside Story of the National Judicial College.Note 1:  The vulnerability of pro se’s to the hostility of judges is exemplified by the fate of Elena Sassower in 2004.  See also: Sherman Skolnick’s Big Court Fix.

Note 2:  In 2006, the American Bar Association issued a manual, Countering the Critics; Q&E Guide [PDF], that instructs judges on how to respond to complaints about the lack of accountability and other “hot-button” issues they are likely encounter from critics of the American court system.

Note 3:  On March 11, 2008 the Judicial Conference of the United States adopted a new set of rules for processing misconduct complaints against federal judges [PDF].  This document also contains instructions for filing complaints against judges.

Hellman, Arthur D., Proposed Amendments to the Federal Judicial Misconduct Rules: Comments and Suggestions (January 23, 2015).

Hearing Before the Judicial Conference of the United States — Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, October 30, 2014; U. of Pittsburgh Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2015-10. Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=2554596

Proposed Amendments to the Federal Judicial Misconduct Rules: Comments and Suggestions


Arthur D. Hell man


University of Pittsburgh

January 23, 2015

Hearing Before the Judicial Conference of the United States — Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, October 30, 2014
U. of Pittsburgh Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2015-10
Abstract:     

     In 2008, the Judicial Conference of the United States – the administrative policy-making body of the federal judiciary – approved a revised set of rules for handling complaints of misconduct or disability on the part of federal judges. Moving away from the decentralizing approach of the pre-2008 Illustrative Rules, the new rules were made binding on all of the federal judicial circuits.
     On September 2, 2014, the Conference’s Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability (Conduct Committee) issued a set of draft amendments to the Rules. The announcement invited comments on the proposed amendments. This statement was submitted in response to that invitation. The statement is in four parts. Part I provides some background. Part II discusses the policy changes proposed by the Committee. Part III addresses the special problems raised by “high-visibility” complaints. Part IV suggests some additional modest revisions in the Rules and flags issues that warrant the Committee’s attention in the future.

     Most of the amendments in the published draft involve clarification or emphasis. But I have identified six revisions that do reflect changes of policy from the 2008 Rules. Five of the six reflect sound policy; they will serve to enhance transparency and strengthen procedural regularity. However, one proposed revision – an amendment that would allow tie votes in the Conduct Committee on petitions for review – is unwise. I urge the Committee to reconsider it.

     Part IV addresses a variety of issues raised by the proposed draft and the Rules as originally adopted. These include: the chief judge’s obligation to “identify” a complaint based on public reports suggesting that a judge may have engaged in misconduct; judicial council authority to impose sanctions on complainants who abuse the process; disqualification of judges from proceedings under the 1980 Act; and making the Rules more user-friendly. The most detailed discussion involves two issues raised by the misconduct complaint against former District Judge Richard Cebull of Montana: judicial-council authority to conclude a proceeding and disclosure of judicial-council orders that have been vacated or modified.

Click on   http://ssrn.com/abstract=2554596

Keywords: Federal Judicial Misconduct Statutes, Breyer Committee Report, Judicial Conduct, Judicial Misconduct, Federal Judges, Judicial Ethics, National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal, Rulemaking, United States Code Chapter 16, Reform, Judicial System, Federal Courts, Judicial Discipline

 

Code of Conduct for United States Judges

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges

The Code of Conduct for United States Judges includes the ethical canons that apply to federal judges and provides guidance on their performance of official duties and engagement in a variety of outside activities.

Introduction
Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities
Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently
Canon 4: A Judge May Engage in Extrajudicial Activities That are Consistent With the Obligations of Judicial Office
Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain From Political Activity
Compliance with the Code of Conduct
Applicable Date of Compliance

Introduction

The Code of Conduct for United States Judges was initially adopted by the Judicial Conference on April 5, 1973, and was known as the “Code of Judicial Conduct for United States Judges.”

See: JCUS-APR 73, pp. 9-11. Since then, the Judicial Conference has made the following changes to the Code:

  • March 1987: deleted the word “Judicial” from the name of the Code;
  • September 1992: adopted substantial revisions to the Code;
  • March 1996: revised part C of the Compliance section, immediately following the Code;
  • September 1996: revised Canons 3C(3)(a) and 5C(4);
  • September 1999: revised Canon 3C(1)(c);
  • September 2000: clarified the Compliance section;
  • March 2009: adopted substantial revisions to the Code.
  • March 2014: revised part C of the Compliance section, which appears below, immediately following the Code. 

     This Code applies to United States circuit judges, district judges, Court of International Trade judges, Court of      Federal Claims judges, bankruptcy judges, and magistrate judges.

     Certain provisions of this Code apply to special masters and commissioners as indicated in the “Compliance” section.

     The Tax Court, Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces have adopted this Code.

The Judicial Conference has authorized its Committee on Codes of Conduct to render advisory opinions about this Code only when requested by a judge to whom this Code applies.

     Requests for opinions and other questions concerning this Code and its applicability should be addressed to the Chair of the Committee on Codes of Conduct by email or as follows:

Chair, Committee on Codes of Conduct
c/o General Counsel
Administrative Office of the United States Courts
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20544
202-502-1100

Procedural questions may be addressed to:

Office of the General Counsel
Administrative Office of the United States Courts
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20544
202-502-1100

Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

     An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.

COMMENTARY

     Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends on public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges.

     The integrity and independence of judges depend in turn on their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law and should comply with this Code. Adherence to this responsibility helps to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and injures our system of government under law.

The Canons are rules of reason. They should be applied consistently with constitutional requirements, statutes, other court rules and decisional law, and in the context of all relevant circumstances.

     The Code is to be construed so it does not impinge on the essential independence of judges in making judicial decisions.

     The Code is designed to provide guidance to judges and nominees for judicial office.

     It may also provide standards of conduct for application in proceedings under the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C. §§ 332(d)(1), 351-364).

     Not every violation of the Code should lead to disciplinary action. Whether disciplinary action is appropriate, and the degree of discipline, should be determined through a reasonable application of the text and should depend on such factors as the seriousness of the improper activity, the intent of the judge, whether there is a pattern of improper activity, and the effect of the improper activity on others or on the judicial system.

      Many of the restrictions in the Code are necessarily cast in general terms, and judges may reasonably differ in their interpretation. Furthermore, the Code is not designed or intended as a basis for civil liability or criminal prosecution. Finally, the Code is not intended to be used for tactical advantage.

Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities

(A)      Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

(B)      Outside Influence.

     A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment.

     A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.

     A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.

(C)      Nondiscriminatory Membership.

     A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin.

COMMENTARY

Canon 2A.

     An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct.

     A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.

     Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code.

     Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code.

Canon 2B.  Testimony as a character witness injects the prestige of the judicial office into the proceeding in which the judge testifies and may be perceived as an official testimonial.

     A judge should discourage a party from requiring the judge to testify as a character witness except in unusual circumstances when the demands of justice require.

     This Canon does not create a privilege against testifying in response to an official summons.

     A judge should avoid lending the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others.

      For example, a judge should not use the judge’s judicial position or title to gain advantage in litigation involving a friend or a member of the judge’s family.

     In contracts for publication of a judge’s writings, a judge should retain control over the advertising to avoid exploitation of the judge’s office.

     A judge should be sensitive to possible abuse of the prestige of office.

     A judge should not initiate communications to a sentencing judge or a probation or corrections officer but may provide information to such persons in response to a formal request.

      Judges may participate in the process of judicial selection by cooperating with appointing authorities and screening committees seeking names for consideration and by responding to official inquiries concerning a person being considered for a judgeship.

Canon 2C. Membership of a judge in an organization that practices invidious discrimination gives rise to perceptions that the judge’s impartiality is impaired.

      Canon 2C refers to the current practices of the organization. Whether an organization practices invidious discrimination is often a complex question to which judges should be sensitive.

     The answer cannot be determined from a mere examination of an organization’s current membership rolls but rather depends on how the organization selects members and other relevant factors, such as that the organization is dedicated to the preservation of religious, ethnic or cultural values of legitimate common interest to its members, or that it is in fact and effect an intimate, purely private organization whose membership limitations could not be constitutionally prohibited. See New York State Club Ass’n. Inc. v. City of New York, 487 U.S. 1, 108 S. Ct. 2225, 101 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1988); Board of Directors of Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537, 107 S. Ct. 1940, 95 L. Ed. 2d 474 (1987); Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 104 S. Ct. 3244, 82 L. Ed. 2d 462 (1984).

     Other relevant factors include the size and nature of the organization and the diversity of persons in the locale who might reasonably be considered potential members.

      Thus the mere absence of diverse membership does not by itself demonstrate a violation unless reasonable persons with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances would expect that the membership would be diverse in the absence of invidious discrimination.

     Absent such factors, an organization is generally said to discriminate invidiously if it arbitrarily excludes from membership on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin persons who would otherwise be admitted to membership.

     Although Canon 2C relates only to membership in organizations that invidiously discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin, a judge’s membership in an organization that engages in any invidiously discriminatory membership practices prohibited by applicable law violates Canons 2 and 2A and gives the appearance of impropriety.

     In addition, it would be a violation of Canons 2 and 2A for a judge to arrange a meeting at a club that the judge knows practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin in its membership or other policies, or for the judge to use such a club regularly.

      Moreover, public manifestation by a judge of the judge’s knowing approval of invidious discrimination on any basis gives the appearance of impropriety under Canon 2 and diminishes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, in violation of Canon 2A.

      When a judge determines that an organization to which the judge belongs engages in invidious discrimination that would preclude membership under Canon 2C or under Canons 2 and 2A, the judge is permitted, in lieu of resigning, to make immediate and continuous efforts to have the organization discontinue its invidiously discriminatory practices.

     If the organization fails to discontinue its invidiously discriminatory practices as promptly as possible (and in all events within two years of the judge’s first learning of the practices), the judge should resign immediately from the organization.

Canon 3:      A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently

     The duties of judicial office take precedence over all other activities. In performing the duties prescribed by law, the judge should adhere to the following standards:

(A)      Adjudicative Responsibilities.

(1)      A judge should be faithful to, and maintain professional competence in, the law and should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.

(2)      A judge should hear and decide matters assigned, unless disqualified, and should maintain order and decorum in all judicial proceedings.

(3)      A judge should be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity.

     A judge should require similar conduct of those subject to the judge’s control, including lawyers to the extent consistent with their role in the adversary process.

(4)     A judge should accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, and that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law.

     Except as set out below, a judge should not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications or consider other communications concerning a pending or impending matter that are made outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers.

     If a judge receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing on the substance of a matter, the judge should promptly notify the parties of the subject matter of the communication and allow the parties an opportunity to respond, if requested.

A judge may:

     (a)      initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications as authorized by law;

     (b)      when circumstances require it, permit ex parte communication for scheduling, administrative, or emergency purposes, but only if the ex parte communication does not address substantive matters and the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural, substantive, or tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication;

     (c)       obtain the written advice of a disinterested expert on the law, but only after giving advance notice to the parties of the person to be consulted and the subject matter of the advice and affording the parties reasonable opportunity to object and respond to the notice and to the advice received; or

     (d)      with the consent of the parties, confer separately with the parties and their counsel in an effort to mediate or settle pending matters.

(5)       A judge should dispose promptly of the business of the court.

(6)      A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.

     A judge should require similar restraint by court personnel subject to the judge’s direction and control.

      The prohibition on public comment on the merits does not extend to public statements made in the course of the judge’s official duties, to explanations of court procedures, or to scholarly presentations made for purposes of legal education.

(B)      Administrative Responsibilities.

(1)      A judge should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in judicial administration, and facilitate the performance of the administrative responsibilities of other judges and court personnel.

(2)      A judge should not direct court personnel to engage in conduct on the judge’s behalf or as the judge’s representative when that conduct would contravene the Code if undertaken by the judge.

(3)      A judge should exercise the power of appointment fairly and only on the basis of merit, avoiding unnecessary appointments, nepotism, and favoritism. A judge should not approve compensation of appointees beyond the fair value of services rendered.

(4)      A judge with supervisory authority over other judges should take reasonable measures to ensure that they perform their duties timely and effectively.

(5)      A judge should take appropriate action upon learning of reliable evidence indicating the likelihood that a judge’s conduct contravened this Code or a lawyer violated applicable rules of professional conduct.

(C)      Disqualification.

(1)      A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:

     (a)      the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

     (b)      the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or lawyer has been a material witness;

     (c)      the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge’s spouse or minor child residing in the judge’s household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;

     (d)      the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such a person is:

           (i)      a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;

           (ii)      acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

          (iii)      known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; or

          (iv)      to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding;

     (e)     the judge has served in governmental employment and in that capacity participated as a judge (in a previous judicial position), counsel, advisor, or material witness concerning the proceeding or has expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.

(2)      A judge should keep informed about the judge’s personal and fiduciary financial interests and make a reasonable effort to keep informed about the personal financial interests of the judge’s spouse and minor children residing in the judge’s household.

(3)      For the purposes of this section:

     (a)       the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system; the following relatives are within the third degree of relationship: parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, great grandparent, great grandchild, sister, brother, aunt, uncle, niece, and nephew; the listed relatives include whole and half blood relatives and most step relatives;

     (b) “fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;

(c) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, advisor, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:

          ( i)      ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;

           (ii)      an office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization;

          (iii)      the proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, or a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;

          (iv)      ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities;

     (d)      “proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation.

(4)      Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Canon, if a judge would be disqualified because of a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the judge (or the judge’s spouse or minor child) divests the interest that provides the grounds for disqualification.

(D) Remittal of Disqualification.

     Instead of withdrawing from the proceeding, a judge disqualified by Canon 3C(1) may, except in the circumstances specifically set out in subsections (a) through (e), disclose on the record the basis of disqualification.

     The judge may participate in the proceeding if, after that disclosure, the parties and their lawyers have an opportunity to confer outside the presence of the judge, all agree in writing or on the record that the judge should not be disqualified, and the judge is then willing to participate.

The agreement should be incorporated in the record of the proceeding.

COMMENTARY

Canon 3A(3).

     The duty to hear all proceedings fairly and with patience is not inconsistent with the duty to dispose promptly of the business of the court.

      Courts can be efficient and businesslike while being patient and deliberate.

     The duty under Canon 2 to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary applies to all the judge’s activities, including the discharge of the judge’s adjudicative and administrative responsibilities.

     The duty to be respectful includes the responsibility to avoid comment or behavior that could reasonably be interpreted as harassment, prejudice or bias.

Canon 3A(4).

     The restriction on ex parte communications concerning a proceeding includes communications from lawyers, law teachers, and others who are not participants in the proceeding.

     A judge may consult with other judges or with court personnel whose function is to aid the judge in carrying out adjudicative responsibilities.

      A judge should make reasonable efforts to ensure that law clerks and other court personnel comply with this provision.

     A judge may encourage and seek to facilitate settlement but should not act in a manner that coerces any party into surrendering the right to have the controversy resolved by the courts.

Canon 3A(5).    

      In disposing of matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly, a judge must demonstrate due regard for the rights of the parties to be heard and to have issues resolved without unnecessary cost or delay.

     A judge should monitor and supervise cases to reduce or eliminate dilatory practices, avoidable delays, and unnecessary costs.

     Prompt disposition of the court’s business requires a judge to devote adequate time to judicial duties, to be punctual in attending court and expeditious in determining matters under submission, and to take reasonable measures to ensure that court personnel, litigants, and their lawyers cooperate with the judge to that end.

Canon 3A(6).      

     The admonition against public comment about the merits of a pending or impending matter continues until the appellate process is complete.

     If the public comment involves a case from the judge’s own court, the judge should take particular care so that the comment does not denigrate public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality, which would violate Canon 2A.

     A judge may comment publicly on proceedings in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity, but not on mandamus proceedings when the judge is a litigant in an official capacity (but the judge may respond in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 21(b)).https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_21 (Rule 21 (b))

Canon 3B(3).      

     A judge’s appointees include assigned counsel, officials such as referees, commissioners, special masters, receivers, guardians, and personnel such as law clerks, secretaries, and judicial assistants. Consent by the parties to an appointment or an award of compensation does not relieve the judge of the obligation prescribed by this subsection.

Canon 3B(5).   

      Appropriate action may include direct communication with the judge or lawyer, other direct action if available, reporting the conduct to the appropriate authorities, or, when the judge believes that a judge’s or lawyer’s conduct is caused by drugs, alcohol, or a medical condition, making a confidential referral to an assistance program.

     Appropriate action may also include responding to a subpoena to testify or otherwise participating in judicial or lawyer disciplinary proceedings; a judge should be candid and honest with disciplinary authorities.

Canon 3C.

     Recusal considerations applicable to a judge’s spouse should also be considered with respect to a person other than a spouse with whom the judge maintains both a household and an intimate relationship.

Canon 3C(1)(c).

      In a criminal proceeding, a victim entitled to restitution is not, within the meaning of this Canon, a party to the proceeding or the subject matter in controversy.

      A judge who has a financial interest in the victim of a crime is not required by Canon 3C(1)(c) to disqualify from the criminal proceeding, but the judge must do so if the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned under Canon 3C(1) or if the judge has an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding under Canon 3C(1)(d)(iii).

Canon 3C(1)(d)(ii).

     The fact that a lawyer in a proceeding is affiliated with a law firm with which a relative of the judge is affiliated does not of itself disqualify the judge.

     However, if “the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned” under Canon 3C(1), or the relative is known by the judge to have an interest in the law firm that could be “substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding” under Canon 3C(1)(d)(iii), the judge’s disqualification is required.

Canon 4:      A Judge May Engage in Extrajudicial Activities that are Consistent with the Obligations of Judicial Office 

     A judge may engage in extrajudicial activities, including law-related pursuits and civic, charitable, educational, religious, social, financial, fiduciary, and governmental activities, and may speak, write, lecture, and teach on both law-related and nonlegal subjects.

      However, a judge should not participate in extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the judge’s office, interfere with the performance of the judge’s official duties, reflect adversely on the judge’s impartiality, lead to frequent disqualification, or violate the limitations set forth below.

(A)      Law-related Activities.

(1)      Speaking, Writing, and Teaching.

     A judge may speak, write, lecture, teach, and participate in other activities concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice

(2)      Consultation.   

       A judge may consult with or appear at a public hearing before an executive or legislative body or official:

     (a)     on matters concerning the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice;

     (b)     to the extent that it would generally be perceived that a judge’s judicial experience provides special expertise in the area; or

     (c)     when the judge is acting pro se in a matter involving the judge or the judge’s interest.

(3)      Organizations.

     A judge may participate in and serve as a member, officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal advisor of a nonprofit organization devoted to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice and may assist such an organization in the management and investment of funds.

      A judge may make recommendations to public and private fund-granting agencies about projects and programs concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice.

(4)      Arbitration and Mediation.

      A judge should not act as an arbitrator or mediator or otherwise perform judicial functions apart from the judge’s official duties unless expressly authorized by law.

(5)      Practice of Law.

     A judge should not practice law and should not serve as a family member’s lawyer in any forum.

     A judge may, however, act pro se and may, without compensation, give legal advice to and draft or review documents for a member of the judge’s family.

(B)      Civic and Charitable ActivitiesA judge may participate in and serve as an officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal advisor of a nonprofit civic, charitable, educational, religious, or social organization, subject to the following limitations:

(1)     A judge should not serve if it is likely that the organization will either be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge or be regularly engaged in adversary proceedings in any court.

(2)     A judge should not give investment advice to such an organization but may serve on its board of directors or trustees even though it has the responsibility for approving investment decisions.

(C)      Fund Raising. A judge may assist nonprofit law-related, civic, charitable, educational, religious, or social organizations in planning fund-raising activities and may be listed as an officer, director, or trustee. A judge may solicit funds for such an organization from judges over whom the judge does not exercise supervisory or appellate authority and from members of the judge’s family. Otherwise, a judge should not personally participate in fund-raising activities, solicit funds for any organization, or use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for that purpose. A judge should not personally participate in membership solicitation if the solicitation might reasonably be perceived as coercive or is essentially a fund-raising mechanism.

(D)     Financial Activities.

(1)       A judge may hold and manage investments, including real estate, and engage in other remunerative activity, but should refrain from financial and business dealings that exploit the judicial position or involve the judge in frequent transactions or continuing business relationships with lawyers or other persons likely to come before the court on which the judge serves.

(2)      A judge may serve as an officer, director, active partner, manager, advisor, or employee of a business only if the business is closely held and controlled by members of the judge’s family. For this purpose, “members of the judge’s family” means persons related to the judge or the judge’s spouse within the third degree of relationship as defined in Canon 3C(3)(a), any other relative with whom the judge or the judge’s spouse maintains a close familial relationship, and the spouse of any of the foregoing.

(3)      As soon as the judge can do so without serious financial detriment, the judge should divest investments and other financial interests that might require frequent disqualification.

(4)      A judge should comply with the restrictions on acceptance of gifts and the prohibition on solicitation of gifts set forth in the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations.

     A judge should endeavor to prevent any member of the judge’s family residing in the household from soliciting or accepting a gift except to the extent that a judge would be permitted to do so by the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations.

     A “member of the judge’s family” means any relative of a judge by blood, adoption, or marriage, or any person treated by a judge as a member of the judge’s family.

(5)      A judge should not disclose or use nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity for any purpose unrelated to the judge’s official duties.

(E)      Fiduciary Activities.

      A judge may serve as the executor, administrator, trustee, guardian, or other fiduciary only for the estate, trust, or person of a member of the judge’s family as defined in Canon 4D(4).

As a family fiduciary a judge is subject to the following restrictions:

(1)      The judge should not serve if it is likely that as a fiduciary the judge would be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge or if the estate, trust, or ward becomes involved in adversary proceedings in the court on which the judge serves or one under its appellate jurisdiction.

(2)      While acting as a fiduciary, a judge is subject to the same restrictions on financial activities that apply to the judge in a personal capacity.

(F)      Governmental Appointments.

      A judge may accept appointment to a governmental committee, commission, or other position only if it is one that concerns the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, or if appointment of a judge is required by federal statute.

     A judge should not, in any event, accept such an appointment if the judge’s governmental duties would tend to undermine the public confidence in the integrity, impartiality, or independence of the judiciary. A judge may represent the judge’s country, state, or locality on ceremonial occasions or in connection with historical, educational, and cultural activities.

(G)      Chambers, Resources, and Staff.     

     A judge should not to any substantial degree use judicial chambers, resources, or staff to engage in extrajudicial activities permitted by this Canon.

(H)      Compensation, Reimbursement, and Financial Reporting.

 A judge may accept compensation and reimbursement of expenses for the law-related and extrajudicial activities permitted by this Code if the source of the payments does not give the appearance of influencing the judge in the judge’s judicial duties or otherwise give the appearance of impropriety, subject to the following restrictions:

(1)      Compensation should not exceed a reasonable amount nor should it exceed what a person who is not a judge would receive for the same activity.

(2)      Expense reimbursement should be limited to the actual costs of travel, food, and lodging reasonably incurred by the judge and, where appropriate to the occasion, by the judge’s spouse or relative. Any additional payment is compensation.

(3)      A judge should make required financial disclosures, including disclosures of gifts and other things of value, in compliance with applicable statutes and Judicial Conference regulations and directives.

COMMENTARY

Canon 4.

     Complete separation of a judge from extrajudicial activities is neither possible nor wise; a judge should not become isolated from the society in which the judge lives. As a judicial officer and a person specially learned in the law, a judge is in a unique position to contribute to the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, including revising substantive and procedural law and improving criminal and juvenile justice.

      To the extent that the judge’s time permits and impartiality is not compromised, the judge is encouraged to do so, either independently or through a bar association, judicial conference, or other organization dedicated to the law. Subject to the same limitations, judges may also engage in a wide range of non-law-related activities.

     Within the boundaries of applicable law (see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 953) a judge may express opposition to the persecution of lawyers and judges anywhere in the world if the judge has ascertained, after reasonable inquiry, that the persecution is occasioned by conflict between the professional responsibilities of the persecuted judge or lawyer and the policies or practices of the relevant government.

     A person other than a spouse with whom the judge maintains both a household and an intimate relationship should be considered a member of the judge’s family for purposes of legal assistance under Canon 4A(5), fund raising under Canon 4C, and family business activities under Canon 4D(2).

Canon 4A.    

      Teaching and serving on the board of a law school are permissible, but in the case of a for-profit law school, board service is limited to a non-governing advisory board.

     Consistent with this Canon, a judge may encourage lawyers to provide pro bono legal services.

Canon 4A(4)

     This Canon generally prohibits a judge from mediating a state court matter, except in unusual circumstances (e.g., when a judge is mediating a federal matter that cannot be resolved effectively without addressing the related state court matter).

Canon 4A(5).

      A judge may act pro se in all legal matters, including matters involving litigation and matters involving appearances before or other dealings with governmental bodies.

      In so doing, a judge must not abuse the prestige of office to advance the interests of the judge or the judge’s family.

Canon 4B.

      The changing nature of some organizations and their exposure to litigation make it necessary for a judge regularly to reexamine the activities of each organization with which the judge is affiliated to determine if the judge’s continued association is appropriate.

For example, in many jurisdictions, charitable hospitals are in court more often now than in the past.

Canon 4C

     A judge may attend fund-raising events of law-related and other organizations although the judge may not be a speaker, a guest of honor, or featured on the program of such an event. Use of a judge’s name, position in the organization, and judicial designation on an organization’s letterhead, including when used for fund raising or soliciting members, does not violate Canon 4C if comparable information and designations are listed for others.

Canon 4D(1), (2), and (3)

     Canon 3 requires disqualification of a judge in any proceeding in which the judge has a financial interest, however small. Canon 4D requires a judge to refrain from engaging in business and from financial activities that might interfere with the impartial performance of the judge’s judicial duties. Canon 4H requires a judge to report compensation received for activities outside the judicial office.

     A judge has the rights of an ordinary citizen with respect to financial affairs, except for limitations required to safeguard the proper performance of the judge’s duties. A judge’s participation in a closely held family business, while generally permissible, may be prohibited if it takes too much time or involves misuse of judicial prestige or if the business is likely to come before the court on which the judge serves. Owning and receiving income from investments do not as such affect the performance of a judge’s duties.

Canon 4D(5)

     The restriction on using nonpublic information is not intended to affect a judge’s ability to act on information as necessary to protect the health or safety of the judge or a member of a judge’s family, court personnel, or other judicial officers if consistent with other provisions of this Code.

Canon 4E

     Mere residence in the judge’s household does not by itself make a person a member of the judge’s family for purposes of this Canon.

The person must be treated by the judge as a member of the judge’s family.

     The Applicable Date of Compliance provision of this Code addresses continued service as a fiduciary.

     A judge’s obligation under this Code and the judge’s obligation as a fiduciary may come into conflict.

      For example, a judge should resign as a trustee if it would result in detriment to the trust to divest holdings whose retention would require frequent disqualification of the judge in violation of Canon 4D(3).

Canon 4F

     The appropriateness of accepting extrajudicial assignments must be assessed in light of the demands on judicial resources and the need to protect the courts from involvement in matters that may prove to be controversial.

     Judges should not accept governmental appointments that could interfere with the effectiveness and independence of the judiciary, interfere with the performance of the judge’s judicial responsibilities, or tend to undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

Canon 4H.

      A judge is not required by this Code to disclose income, debts, or investments, except as provided in this Canon. The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 and implementing regulations promulgated by the Judicial Conference impose additional restrictions on judges’ receipt of compensation.

     That Act and those regulations should be consulted before a judge enters into any arrangement involving the receipt of compensation.

     The restrictions so imposed include but are not limited to:

(1)      a prohibition against receiving “honoraria” (defined as anything of value received for a speech, appearance, or article),

(2)      a prohibition against receiving compensation for service as a director, trustee, or officer of a profit or nonprofit organization, (3) a requirement that compensated teaching activities receive prior approval, and (4) a limitation on the receipt of “outside earned income.”

Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity

(A) General Prohibitions. A judge should not:

(1) act as a leader or hold any office in a political organization;

(2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office; or

(3) solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution to a political organization or candidate, or attend or purchase a ticket for a dinner or other event sponsored by a political organization or candidate.

(B) Resignation upon Candidacy. A judge should resign the judicial office if the judge becomes a candidate in a primary or general election for any office.

(C) Other Political Activity. A judge should not engage in any other political activity. This provision does not prevent a judge from engaging in activities described in Canon 4.

COMMENTARY

The term “political organization” refers to a political party, a group affiliated with a political party or candidate for public office, or an entity whose principal purpose is to advocate for or against political candidates or parties in connection with elections for public office.

Compliance with the Code of Conduct

Anyone who is an officer of the federal judicial system authorized to perform judicial functions is a judge for the purpose of this Code.

All judges should comply with this Code except as provided below.

(A)      Part-time Judge

     A part-time judge is a judge who serves part-time, whether continuously or periodically, but is permitted by law to devote time to some other profession or occupation and whose compensation for that reason is less than that of a full-time judge.

A part-time judge:

(1)      is not required to comply with Canons 4A(4), 4A(5), 4D(2), 4E, 4F, or 4H(3);
(2)      except as provided in the Conflict-of-Interest Rules for Part-time Magistrate Judges, should not practice law in the court on which the judge serves or in any court subject to that court’s appellate jurisdiction, or act as a lawyer in a proceeding in which the judge has served as a judge or in any related proceeding.

(B)      Judge Pro Tempore

     A judge pro tempore is a person who is appointed to act temporarily as a judge or as a special master.

(1) While acting in this capacity, a judge pro tempore is not required to comply with Canons 4A(4), 4A(5), 4D(2), 4D(3), 4E, 4F, or 4H(3); further, one who acts solely as a special master is not required to comply with Canons 4A(3), 4B, 4C, 4D(4), or 5.

(2)      A person who has been a judge pro tempore should not act as a lawyer in a proceeding in which the judge has served as a judge or in any related proceeding.

(C)      Retired Judge

     A judge who is retired under 28 U.S.C. § 371(b) or § 372(a) (applicable to Article III judges), or who is subject to recall under § 178(d) (applicable to judges on the Court of Federal Claims), or who is recalled to judicial service, should comply with all the provisions of this Code except Canon 4F, but the judge should refrain from judicial service during the period of extrajudicial appointment not sanctioned by Canon 4F.

     All other retired judges who are eligible for recall to judicial service (except those in U.S. territories and possessions) should comply with the provisions of this Code governing part-time judges.

     However, bankruptcy judges and magistrate judges who are eligible for recall but who have notified the Administrative Office of the United States Courts that they will not consent to recall are not obligated to comply with the provisions of this Code governing part-time judges.

     Such notification may be made at any time after retirement, and is irrevocable. A senior judge in the territories and possessions must comply with this Code as prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 373(c)(5) and (d).

COMMENTARY

     The 2014 amendment to the Compliance section, regarding retired bankruptcy judges and magistrate judges and exempting those judges from compliance with the Code as part-time judges if they notify the Administrative Office of the United States Courts that they will not consent to recall, was not intended to alter those judges’ statutory entitlements to annuities, cost-of-living adjustments, or any other retirement benefits.

Applicable Date of Compliance

     Persons to whom this Code applies should arrange their financial and fiduciary affairs as soon as reasonably possible to comply with it and should do so in any event within one year after appointment.

     If, however, the demands on the person’s time and the possibility of conflicts of interest are not substantial, such a person may continue to act, without compensation, as an executor, administrator, trustee, or other fiduciary for the estate or person of one who is not a member of the person’s family if terminating the relationship would unnecessarily jeopardize any substantial interest of the estate or person and if the judicial council of the circuit approves.

Last revised (Transmittal 02-016) March 20, 2014

http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/revoltingjudges_03a.htm

 

Interviews with Dr. Bernofsky on…

Inns of Court

attorneyhttp://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/innsofcourt_box.htm

Conservative talk show host of The Justice Hour, Florida attorneyLisa Macci, spoke with Dr. Bernofsky about the Inns of Court, his case against Tulane University, and his experience with the civil justice system. 

The program, which also featured her fellow attorney Elizabeth Case, was broadcast live over WPBR 1340 AM radio at 9:00 a.m., eastern standard time, on June 26, 2006.  The audio clip presented here runs about 38 minutes and has no commercial breaks.Carl Bernofsky, 2006

Carl Bernofsky

http://www.tulanelink.com/audio/macci_06a.swf

Lisa Macci may be contacted by email at: lisamacci@msn.com.

Her Web site is at:  http://www.lisamacci.com.


 

Judicial Conflict of Interest

Social activist and talk show host of Late Night with D’Anne, Illinois investigative reporter D’Anne Burley spoke with Dr. Bernofsky about judicial conflict of interest, his case against Tulane University, and his experience with the civil justice system.  The program was broadcast live over the Internet by the Republic Broadcasting Network (http://www.rbnlive.com) at 10:00 p.m., central standard time, on July 29, 2006.  The audio clip presented here runs about 41 minutes and has no commercial breaks.

http://www.tulanelink.com/audio/burley_06A.swf
D’Anne Burley may be contacted at: (630) 477-0860 or (630) 441-0548. 

Her Web site is at: http://danneburley.blogspot.com.  Broadcast archives are available at:http://www.rbnlive.com/archiveindex.html.


 

No Justice Here

Watch video, Carl Bernofsky, 2008

See video about Dr. Bernofsky’s case against Tulane University.  Click on image.

 

Special Rules for Special Cases,

for Example, in  Rule 26A.015

     Disqualification of justice or judge of the Court of Justice, or master commissioner.

(1)      For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated: (a) “Proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation; (b) “Fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, conservator, trustee, and guardian; (c) “Financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:

1.      Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities, or a proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, or ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;

2.      An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization.

(2)      Any justice or judge of the Court of Justice or master commissioner shall disqualify himself in any proceeding:

     (a)      Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings, or has expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the proceeding;

     (b)      Where in private practice or government service he served as a lawyer or rendered a legal opinion in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter in controversy, or the judge, master commissioner or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning the matter in controversy;

     (c)      Where he knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a pecuniary or proprietary interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding;

     (d)      Where he or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:

1. Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;

2.      Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding and the disqualification is not waived by stipulation of counsel in the proceeding filed therein;

3.      Is known by the judge or master commissioner to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

4.      Is to the knowledge of the judge or master commissioner likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

      (e)      Where he has knowledge of any other circumstances in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(3) (a)      Any justice or judge of the Court of Justice disqualified under the provisions of this section shall be replaced by the Chief Justice.

     (b)      Any master commissioner disqualified under the provisions of this section or unable to discharge the duties of his office for any other reason shall be replaced by a special commissioner who shall be appointed by the judge of the court before whom the action is pending.

     The special commissioner shall meet the same qualifications as a master commissioner and shall take an oath and execute a bond as the regular commissioner is required to do.

Effective:     July 1, 1982 History: Amended 1982 Ky. Acts ch. 141, sec. 41, effective July 1, 1982. — Created 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 22, sec. 4. Note: 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 396, sec. 44 would have amended this section effective July 1, 1982. However, 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 396 was repealed by 1982 Ky. Acts ch. 141, sec. 146, also effective July 1, 1982.

 

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

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.

  • CENSORSHIP WILL BE PROSECUTED AS IT IS A FEDERAL OFFENSE IN THE THIS REPUBLIC USA, THE LAWS TO WHICH YOU WILL BE HELD ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!
  • (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.

 


 

U.S. Human Experiments – Mind Control, Ritual Child Abuse? Victims Public Testimony – pt.1 of 2 (VIDEO)


U.S. Human Experiments –

Mind Control, Ritual Child Abuse? 

Victims Public Testimony – pt.1 of 2 (VIDEO)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfmTAScPofs

 

Source: U.S. Human Experiments – Mind Control, Ritual Child Abuse? – Victims Public Testimony – pt.1 of 2, published by “Mother, should I trust the government? <a href="/channel/UC5tHbtMpMhuQtpAJ_UCGWCg" class=" yt-uix-sessionlink     spf-link  g-hovercard" data-sessionlink="ei=U8evVMPfN4aUrAbm4YKoAw" data-ytid="UC5tHbtMpMhuQtpAJ_UCGWCg" data-name="">Mother, should I trust the government?</a>on Youtube.com on October 20, 2012, Uploaded by mamasuntwinkle

Like or follow at …

https://www.facebook.com/mother.should.i
https://www.twitter.com/mothershouldi #mothershouldi

Uploaded by mamasuntwinkle

S Tucson – AZCPS deaths. Foster Children Still Used (Below). U.S. Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments Public Meeting, Washington DC, March 1995. Valerie Wolf (A), Chris DeNicola Tucson Arizona (B), Claudia Mullen (C). Pg 77 http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/radiatio…

MKULTRA Victim B Tucson AZ. Testimony U.S. Hearings. Transcript http://www.whale.to/b/wolf3.html

Monarch Mind Control http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/as… and http://secretarcana.com/hiddenknowled…

Project MKULTRA, CIA’s Program Of Research In Behavioral Modification, 1977 Senate MKULTRA Hearings http://www.whale.to/b/Project%20MKULT…

GREENBAUM SPEECH. Lecture by D.C.Hammond, originally entitled “Hypnosis in MPD: Ritual Abuse”, delivered at 4th Annual Eastern Region Conference on Abuse and Multiple Personality, June 1992, Alexandria, VA. Sponsored by Center for Abuse Recovery & Empowerment, The Psychiatric Institute of Washington, DC.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/soc… and http://www.whale.to/b/greenbaum.html

S.M.A.R.T. cases, conferences http://ritualabuse.us/smart-conference/

Organized Child Abuse Studies http://ritualabuse.us/mindcontrol/eas…

The CASES: http://ritualabuse.us/mindcontrol/art…

The Secrets of Mind Control; Based on 3 Books by Top Mind Control Researchers http://www.wanttoknow.info/mindcontro…

Experiments on foster children. Las Vegas Now reports Dr Mark Collins, director of Montevista Hospital who also contracts with several residential treatment centers, is ordering brain scans for foster children prior to their being prescribed highly toxic psychotropic drugs.
According to a legal complaint by Children’s Attorneys Project, submitted to the Nevada Dep’t of Health and Human Services, foster children in Nevada are being over-diagnosed w bipolar disorder, on the basis of a dangerous brain scan. Prior to the brain scan children are injected w radioactive material “to illuminate blood flow in their brain.”
Legal Complaint: http://www2.8newsnow.com/docs/spect_c…

The use of these scans to justify prescribing highly toxic drugs for children is an example of the misuse of experimental scientific tools. Their use as a diagnostic tool is bogus. Even the American Psychiatric Assoc does not accept the use of brain imaging for the clinical diagnosis of children, in part, because of children’s sensitivity to radiation + risk of radiation-induced cancer. The complaint indicates “there appear to be conflicts of interest among service providers and hospitals.”

I-Team: Lawyers Question Medical Tests on Foster Kids. Nov 15, 2008. This is a story about an 8-YO boy in foster care. A boy we’ve never met. He exists for us only as a name on a letter questioning his mental health treatment. His lawyer Janice Wolf wants us to remember Nathaniel is real. “Some of the things our kids have gone through, you and I could only imagine in our dreams, or nightmares.” Nathaniel described vivid nightmares according psychiatric records obtained by the I-Team.
During his first of 2 hospitalizations, Dr. Mark Collins ordered a procedure called a brain spect. It requires the injection of radioactive material to illuminate blood flow in the brain.
In a report to the family court, Collins writes the scan confirms Nathaniel has “severe bipolar disorder.”
“I think my concern is that our foster kids are getting not just the best psychiatric care, but proper psychiatric care – that they’re not being mistreated, or experimented on, or used as investigational tools,” said Wolf.
A recent Medicaid review by the Nevada State Dept of Health and Human Services identified 96 Montevista patients who underwent brain imaging, the majority kids in the juvenile justice/child welfare system. Only a caseworker stands between a child and a controversial procedure. http://www.8newsnow.com/global/story….

Nevada Medicaid Statement: http://www2.8newsnow.com/docs/memo%20…

This video uses copyrighted material in a manner that does not require approval of the copyright holder. It is a fair use under copyright law.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

  • License

    • Standard YouTube License
    • Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED)

    • CENSORSHIP WILL BE PROSECUTED AS IT IS A FEDERAL OFFENSE IN THE THIS REPUBLIC USA, THE LAWS TO WHICH YOU WILL BE HELD ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!

    • (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 incorporated 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 for  a full or partial retraction in a timely manner so that Author of this blog may respond expediently and lawfully.

Canada Grants Refugee Status to Dakota County, MN Mother and Child/Sperling v. Sperling


Canada Grants Refugee Status to Dakota County, MN Mother and Child/Sperling v. Sperling.

“From Womb to Tomb: Child Slavery and US Courts” by Brett Redmayne Titley


“From Womb to Tomb: Child Slavery and US Courts,”

by: Brett Redmayne Titley, PressTV.com

July 19, 2014

Fox News Reporter Martin Burns lost his life for this story to be told, and so did former Georgia Senator Nancy Schaefer and her husband, Bruce.  Author of this blog sincerely hopes that any readers will invest the time to not only read this profound and inspired story by Brett Redmayne Titley of Press TV, but that he or she will  further research and expose the nightmare that has incrementally transformed our reality in America, most dramatically, for our children.

Click on or go to,  www.presstv.com/detail/2014/07/18/371805/child-slavery-and-us-courts/ to access this incredibly important story that most reporters and networks, and those who pay them, have gone to great lengths to conceal from real Americans and real mommies and daddies.

Sources:

(1) Press TV, Brett Redmayne Titley, “From Womb to Tomb: Child Slavery and US Courts,” July 19, 2014

(2) California Protective Parents Association newsletter, Connie Valentine

“EXPOSE V on the CHILD ABUSE INDUSTRY, RECOGNIZING PROBLEMS, SEEKING SOLUTIONS,” AMERICAN FAMILY RIGHTS ASSOCIATION (“AFRA”)


EXPOSE V on the CHILD ABUSE INDUSTRY, RECOGNIZING PROBLEMS, SEEKING SOLUTIONS,” AMERICAN FAMILY RIGHTS ASSOCIATION (“AFRA”)

http://www.fairplayforchildren.org/pdf/1218129741.pdf.

Source: Fair Play for Children (VA).org

This is a must read, resourceful collection of well-researched, documented, intended for Congressional presentation material in defense of real American Family Rights (compiled by the American Family Rights Association, or, “AFRA“).

All  parent(s), grandparent(s), uninitiated and ethical family law attorneys, judges, associate judges, “therapists,”  caregivers, families, teachers, lobbyists, doctors, nurses, health care professionals, mandatory first or second reporters, psychologists, psychiatrists, clergy members, God-fearing Individuals, guardians, “advocates,” neighbors to someone with children, stepparents, families of stepparents, future/prospective, and/oror expecting parents, and concerned citizens or Sovereign individuals residing on the land should click on the link provided (or otherwise cut and paste into browser or write it down and then re-type it into the browser or search engine, as some content may be inaccessible due to Internet censors for hire to government and large companies who have a special interest in keeping the truth about the federalizing and child-trafficking and abuse and rape of our children silent, to the tune of approximately $50 Billion dollars per year), download it, print any of the articles that might be of use to you and/or your family who may or may not have had the misfortune of being exposed to the “Shadow” Government Agency that is the “SS” (social services) and their commissioned, community partner and key stakeholder/shareholder joint private-public, non-for-profit, court, and “therapeutic” and attorney and judicial arms or affiliates.  It has been estimated that one’s child has at least a 1:25 chance of having a negative run-in with “child protective services” in one’s childhood through adolescence (contrast that with the estimated likelihood of 1:70 for getting a nail in one’s tire).