“I’ve decided to continue speaking…”


Family Court in America

From theCongressional Testimony of Stacy Lynne to Bill Windsor ofLawless America:

“… This morning I spoke for two hours at a meeting in Jefferson County for the first time since my son was taken nearly a year ago and I have nothing left to lose. They’ve taken everything from me. And I’ve decided to continue speaking as I have done before to help people learn about how to protect their children and their families from the corruption in the United States of America…

Lawless America…The Movie is all about exposing the fact that we now live in Lawless America. We no longer have laws that are enforced because judges do whatever they want to do. America has also become lawless because government officials are dishonest and/or corrupt.

The movie will expose corruption in every state. The Movie will focus on victims. Corrupt judges and corrupt government officials…

View original post 140 more words

ENTITLEMENT FUNDING FOR STATE COURTS TO ASSESS AND IMPROVE HANDLING OF PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO FOSTER CARE AND ADOPTION


SSA logo: link to Social Security Online home

ENTITLEMENT FUNDING FOR STATE COURTS TO ASSESS AND IMPROVE HANDLING OF PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO FOSTER CARE AND ADOPTION

Sec438. [42 U.S.C. 629h] (a) In General.—The Secretary shall make grants, in accordance with this section, to the highest State courts in States participating in the program under part E of title IV of the Social Security Act, for the purpose of enabling such courts—

(1) to conduct assessments, in accordance with such requirements as the Secretary shall publish, of the role, responsibilities, and effectiveness of State courts in carrying out State laws requiring proceedings (conducted by or under the supervision of the courts)—

(A) that implement parts B and E ;

(B) that determine the advisability or appropriateness of foster care placement;

(C) that determine whether to terminate parental rights;

(D) that determine whether to approve the adoption or other permanent placement of a child;

(E) that determine the best strategy to use to expedite the interstate placement of children, including—

(i) requiring courts in different States to cooperate in the sharing of information;

(ii) authorizing courts to obtain information and testimony from agencies and parties in other States without requiring interstate travel by the agencies and parties; and

(iii) permitting the participation of parents, children, other necessary parties, and attorneys in cases involving interstate placement without requiring their interstate travel; and

(2) to implement improvements the highest state courts deem necessary as a result of the assessments, including—

(A) to provide for the safety, well-being, and permanence of children in foster care, as set forth in the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-89), including the requirements in the Act related to concurrent planning;[147]

(B) to implement a corrective action plan, as necessary, resulting from reviews of child and family service programs under section 1123A of this Act; and[148]

(C)[149] to increase and improve engagement of the entire family in court processes relating to child welfare, family preservation, family reunification, and adoption;

(3) to ensure that the safety, permanence, and well-being needs of children are met in a timely and complete manner; and

(4)(A)[150] to provide for the training of judges, attorneys and other legal personnel in child welfare cases; and[151]

(B)[152] to increase and improve engagement of the entire family in court processes relating to child welfare, family preservation, family reunification, and adoption.

(b) Applications.—

(1) In general.—In order to be eligible to receive a grant under this section, a highest State court shall have in effect a rule requiring State courts to ensure that foster parents, pre-adoptive parents, and relative caregivers of a child in foster care under the responsibility of the State are notified of any proceeding to be held with respect to the child, and shall submit to the Secretary an application at such time, in such form, and including such information and assurances as the Secretary may require, including—

(A) in the case of a grant for the purpose described in subsection (a)(3), a description of how courts and child welfare agencies on the local and State levels will collaborate and jointly plan for the collection and sharing of all relevant data and information to demonstrate how improved case tracking and analysis of child abuse and neglect cases will produce safe and timely permanency decisions;

(B) in the case of a grant for the purpose described in subsection (a)(4), a demonstration that a portion of the grant will be used for cross-training initiatives that are jointly planned and executed with the State agency or any other agency under contract with the State to administer the State program under the State plan under subpart 1, the State plan approved under section 434, or the State plan approved under part E; and

(C) in the case of a grant for any purpose described in subsection (a), a demonstration of meaningful and ongoing collaboration among the courts in the State, the State agency or any other agency under contract with the State who is responsible for administering the State program under part B or E, and, where applicable, Indian tribes.

(2)[153] Single grant application.—Pursuant to the requirements under paragraph (1) of this subsection, a highest State court desiring a grant under this section shall submit a single application to the Secretary that specifies whether the application is for a grant for—

(A) the purposes described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a);

(B) the purpose described in subsection (a)(3);

(C) the purpose described in subsection (a)(4); or

(D) the purposes referred to in 2 or more (specifically identified) of subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of this paragraph.

(c)[154] Amount of Grant.—

(1) In general.—With respect to each of subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of subsection (b)(2) that refers to 1 or more grant purposes for which an application of a highest State court is approved under this section, the court shall be entitled to payment, for each of fiscal years 2012 through 2016, from the amount allocated under paragraph (3) of this subsection for grants for the purpose or purposes, of an amount equal to $85,000 plus the amount described in paragraph (2) of this subsection with respect to the purpose or purposes.

(2) Amount described.—The amount described in this paragraph for any fiscal year with respect to the purpose or purposes referred to in a subparagraph of subsection (b)(2) is the amount that bears the same ratio to the total of the amounts allocated under paragraph (3) of this subsection for grants for the purpose or purposes as the number of individuals in the State who have not attained 21 years of age bears to the total number of such individuals in all States the highest State courts of which have approved applications under this section for grants for the purpose or purposes.

(3) Allocation of funds.—

(A) Mandatory funds.—Of the amounts reserved under section 436(b)(2) for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall allocate—

(i) $9,000,000 for grants for the purposes described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a);

(ii) $10,000,000 for grants for the purpose described in subsection (a)(3);

(iii) $10,000,000 for grants for the purpose described in subsection (a)(4); and

(iv) $1,000,000 for grants to be awarded on a competitive basis among the highest courts of Indian tribes or tribal consortia that—

(I) are operating a program under part E, in accordance with section 479B;

(II) are seeking to operate a program under part E and have received an implementation grant under section 476; or

(III) has a court responsible for proceedings related to foster care or adoption.

(B) Discretionary funds.—The Secretary shall allocate all of the amounts reserved under section 437(b)(2) for grants for the purposes described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a).

(d) Federal Share.—Each highest State court which receives funds paid under this section may use such funds to pay not more than 75 percent of the cost of activities under this section in each of fiscal years 2012 through 2016[155].

(e) Funding for Grants for Improved Data Collection and Training.—Out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated to the Secretary, for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010—

(1) $10,000,000 for grants referred to in subsection (b)(2)(B); and

(2) $10,000,000 for grants referred to in subsection (b)(2)(C).

For fiscal year 2011, out of the amount reserved pursuant to section 436(b)(2) for such fiscal year, there are available $10,000,000 for grants referred to in subsection (b)(2)(B), and $10,000,000 for grants referred to in subsection (b)(2)(C).


[147]  P.L. 112-34, §104(a)(1)(A), struck out “; and” and inserted “, including the requirements in the Act related to concurrent planning;”, effective October 1, 2011.

[148]  P.L. 112-34, §104(a)(1)(B), added “and”.

[149]  P.L. 112-34, §104(a)(1)(C), added subparagraph (C), effective October 1, 2011.

[150]  P.L. 112-34, §104(a)(2)(A), inserted “(A)”.

[151]  P.L. 112-34, §104(a)(2)(B), struck out the period and inserted “; and”.

[152]  P.L. 112-34, §104(a)(2)(C), added subparagraph (B), effective October 1, 2011.

[153]  P.L. 112-34, §104(b), amended paragraph (2) in its entirety, effective October 1, 2011. For paragraph (2) as it formerly read, see Vol. II, Appendix J, Superseded Provisions, P.L. 112-34.

[154]  P.L. 112-34, §104(c), amended subsection (c) in its entirety, effective October 1, 2011. For subsection (c) as it formerly read, see Vol. II, Appendix J, Superseded Provisions, P.L. 112-34.

[155]  P.L. 112-34, §104(d), struck out “2002 through 2011” and inserted “2012 through 2016”, effective October 1, 2011.

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,

Shawn McMillan Stephen Daner 2014 Street Fighter Finalists


 RE-BLOGGED FROM

Breaking News

Home / DCF or CPS / Shawn McMillan Stephen Daner 2014 Street Fighter Finalists

Shawn McMillan Stephen Daner 2014 Street Fighter Finalists

Shawn A. McMillan and Stephen D. Daner, 2014 Street Fighter of the Year Finalists

Angela’s Story| Corrupt TX (HOU)


STATE IGNORED ITS OWN RULES IN ANGELA’S CASE

Thank you Lisa Falkenberg and The Houston Chronicle for this Story!  We need more attention on protective parents as they are an increasingly targeted minority class that continues to be re-victimized and ignored by the media!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dmXEhpzHtAE

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/columnists/falkenberg/article/State-ignored-own-rules-in-Angela-s-case-5205306.php

Juvenile Justice Handbook 2014


Juvenile Justice Handbook 2014

 

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/AG_Publications/pdfs/juvenile_justice.pdf

FAMILY COURT ATTORNEY PLEADS GUILTY


FAMILY COURT ATTORNEY PLEADS GUILTY

http://wnep.com/2013/12/16/former-family-court-attorney-pleads-guilty/

Advice for Parents Considering or Involved in a Custody Dispute: The Chaos of Courts, Lawyers, and Psychologists Exposed


California Coalition for Families and Children, PBC

Phoenix program cover thumbnailFrom California Coalition’s litigation library this week we bring you the inside word on custody evaluations from judges, lawyers, and evaluators themselves.  When is a custody evaluation legal? When is it appropriate? When should it be ordered? What is the policy of courts in making these decisions?

Three Los Angeles Family Court practitioners explain their policies and practices at the 2012 10th Symposium on Child Custody Evaluations in Phoenix. The audio is linked below.

If you’ve been told or otherwise believe child custody evaluations are well-studied, regular processes–like an operation or physical therapy–what you’re about to learn will amaze you.

[More at WeightierMatter.com ….]

View original post

CPS PAYS $400,000 FOR KIDNAPPING TWIN BOYS


CPS PAYS $400,000 FOR KIDNAPPING TWIN BOYS

http://bluemassgroup.com/2006/12/child-welfare-law-takes-a-bold-step-in-california/

Social workers (CPS) in Oakland County in Berkeley, California forced to settle with mom whose twin boys they conspired to kidnap, or, “remove.”  The four hundred thousand dollar settlement may or may not change the way they operate.

Please note the following:  In California social workers and the state were held financially liable for removal absent immediate danger of physical injury – emotional abuse allegations were no protection against liability AND Child’s counsel was held financially liable for failing to represent the position of elementary-school age children.  Unjust removal was held to be so traumatic, that the emotional injury to the two boys even though returned eventually merited an award of hundreeds of thousands of dollars.  I agree that the trauma of removal is worse for many of our child clients than the allegations against them in DSS affidavits.

It is equally critical to put on sibling visitation cases, and to actually and zealously represent what child clients want and to give voice to kinship relational value.  It is not enough and should never be a “rubber stamp” of DSS biased social engineering, or “easier” to represent children.  Further, if one child goes home and an attorney is appointed to represent only that child, the job is not over.  There is a duty to fight for sibling relations pursuant to G.L. c. 119 Sec. 26(5) and 29.

Any case under G.L. c. 119 or G.L.c. 210 is as important to all child clients, at least in my opinion, as any criminal matter and in a Section 3 termination case, we are the bulwark against the death of a family and a child’s permanent loss of not just their mother and father, but also their brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, and very identity formation.

Our SJC has this issue under consideration – I will update you as it moves along.  As a matter of disclosure, I currently am handling a case with a sibling visitation issue in the Supreme Judicial court. See  http://www.ma-appell… While the law of the Commonwealth states that siblings “shall” have a right to maintain contact with one another if removed into foster care, or adopted over objection or made into legal orphans by the state http://www.mass.gov/… (See section 26(5) at this official site) as of now, the child, say a 12 year old whose 8 year old brother or sister has been placed in another home, is not appointed an attorney to assist them in actually enforcing this statutory right.

Deb Sirotkin Butler

AmberPaw@aol.com

[Please feel free to forward]

Oakland Tribune

County pays mom $400,000 for boys’ removal without

warrant Deal could change how social workers treat

cases

By Donna Horowitz

Staff Writer

Wednesday, July 10, 2002 – The Alameda County Board of

Supervisors agreed to pay a Berkeley mother $400,000

and change its policies to settle her suit that

charged the county removed her twin sons from her home

without a warrant.

The settlement with Patricia Moodian, one of two

approved in closed session Tuesday, was announced by

County Counsel Richard Winnie.

The deal with Moodian means county social workers will

have to change the way they handle such cases in the

future, and it could pave the way for similar policy

changes in other counties, said Moodian’s Berkeley

attorney, David Beauvais.

The county has agreed to a consent decree that would

prohibit these warrantless intrusions and removals of

children,  Beauvais said.

The county can’t remove children without warrants

unless there’s imminent danger of serious physical

harm or death,  he said.

A stipulated agreement

He anticipates the consent decree, essentially a

stipulated agreement reached by both sides, will come

before U.S. District Court Magistrate Bernard

Zimmerman for approval within the next week or two.

Last month, Zimmerman ruled that a county social

worker violated Moodian and her son’s constitutional

rights by removing the boys from their home in June

2001, without a warrant, for alleged emotional abuse.

He said state law allows children to be taken from

their parents without prior judicial approval if the

social worker believes the child is in imminent

danger, but noted that emotional harm  does not carry

the same immediacy.

This was the second time the county removed the boys

from their mother. Social workers also removed them

from their home in April 2000.

Both times they were returned to their mother.

This is an emerging area of the law,  Winnie said.
The social worker felt it was justified, but the

court felt she required a warrant in such

circumstances.

Winnie said the boys, now both 11, also have a

malpractice case against their public defender, Kathy

Siegel, which is pending. That lawsuit claims Siegel

and her office was negligent in the way they

represented the boys, saying she  advocated against

them in the proceedings.  The boys eventually fired

her.

Interest-bearing trust

Siegel was not available for comment.

Beauvais said the family will divide up the settlement

and the boys’ share will go into an interest-bearing

trust account, which they will get when they turn 18.

Winnie said about half of the settlement will go for

attorneys fees.

County Social Services Agency spokeswoman Sylvia Myles

said she didn’t know how the decision would affect the

way social workers handle such cases until  we get

direction from the county counsel. We expect something

coming down the pike very soon.

 

This post was originally published with Soapblox and contains additional formatting and metadata.
View archived version of this post
.

“Safe is a ‘Relative’ Term (of legal, unlawful art)”: Austin, Texas Criminalizes Childhood


“Child Services to Mom Who Did Nothing Wrong: ‘Just Don’t Let Your Kids Play Outside”

,

  September 15, 2014

http://www.reason.com/blog/2014/09/15/child-services-to-mom-who-did-nothing-wr,

Exposing The Illuminati From Within (Part 1 of 2)


 

Exposing The Illuminati From Within (Part 1 of 2)

Featured Guest :  Bill Schnoebelen, self-reported (former) “33rd-degree mason,”  “born-again” Christian, presentation hosted by The Prophecy Club

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ckDxBhMt2GA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=kw7QRycd4cw

Source: Posted to Youtube.com by “TallPaul Too,” November 12, 2012, The  Prophecy Club, www.prophecyclub.com/

Aside from any possible “conspiracy” connotation that this highly informative if not provocative piece may carry by title, it is a rare treat to the “truth”-seeking individual.  Though it be rather long in duration for the typical Youtube video, it leaves one wanting to learn more.  Please enjoy (click on the link above, or, in the alternative, enter manually into your browser).

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Interview with Tim Kinley on “Speechless,” Family Court Corruption


Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Interview with Tim Kinley on “Speechless,” Family Court Corruption

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

Dakota County MN Judge David L. Knutson/Case of Grazzini-Rucki

Posted on March 14, 2013

Dakota County neighbors Carver County in Minnesota. Both Dakota and Carver County are in the First District Court.

[letter sent to 150 state reps and senators]

Judge Denies Mother Contact With Her Children
The case of Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki and her children.

Dakota County Judge David Knutson issued an order on September 7, 2012 that denies the mother of five children any contact with her children. He ordered mother to vacate her home of 15 years on the same day as the court order. Mother was able to take only a suitcase of her clothes. She was forced to leave her home and all of her possessions which she has never been able to recover. She was denied any due process. She was told she would be arrested and jailed if she refused to follow Judge Knutson’s orders. She now is homeless, has no vehicle, no bank accounts, no credit cards, and no assets other than her clothing. She has only her job as an airline flight attendant which she has held for approx 27 years while taking leaves to care for her children. As a professional flight attendant, she is routinely tested for alcohol and substance abuse. All her independent psychological evaluations are completely normal.
Her wages are garnished 25% for payment of past marital taxes even though mother has been left destitute with prior use of MN Care Insurance and food stamps after the divorce. Her ex-husband’s income is in excess of $200,000 per month and he retains all of the marital property. There was no hearing or any finding that she ever hurt or abused any of her five children in any way.
The five children, ages 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16, were ordered to live in the custody of two aunts. The four youngest children have lived with their maternal aunt for almost six months without support from anyone. The children have not had or been allowed any contact with their mother except for one three-hour heavily supervised visit in late December, 2012. They have not had any contact with their father who has physically and sexually abused them and who hate him. In court on February 26, 2013, this aunt said she no longer is willing to provide for the children. The oldest child, a boy 16 years old, now lives in the former home of his mother with his father, who we believe a car and other expensive gifts in an attempt to buy the boy’s loyalty. The four youngest children no longer have a relationship with their oldest brother.
Why did all of this happen? In late August, 2012, Judge Knutson appointed an “expert” to make a recommendation on the parenting of the children. This expert, Dr. Paul Reitman, met with four of the children for about thirty minutes. He conducted no other evaluations, tests, or analysis. Yet, on the basis of this meeting, he issued his report that the problem was caused by the Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), a condition of the mother. Parental Alienation has been rejected by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Medical Association. They believe it to be unsubstantiated. In fact, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCI)  has published guidelines stating that “The theory positing the existence of ‘PAS’ has been discredited by the scientific community.”
Nevertheless, Judge Knutson appointed another expert, Dr. James Gilbertson, to attempt to re-unify the children with their abusive father. He said he would “reprogram” the children to like their father—he saw them 3 times in 6 months. This failed leading to the February 26, 2013 hearing. At this hearing, Dr. Gilbertson arranged for the children to appear before Judge Knutson in a conference room. Judge Knutson listened to the children’s short statements and told them he was going to issue orders that they had to follow. The transcript of this meeting has been ordered. The mother has requested information from Gilbertson and Reitman such as appointment dates, payment history, and other documents, but these have been denied by the practitioners saying they are protected by the judge and do not need to follow the guidelines of their respective professional organizations. Judge Knutson has not allowed the opinions of any other professionals to be heard.
The four youngest children will now be homeless. They begged to be with their mother. Their lives have been seriously disrupted. The Guardian ad Litem (GAL), Julie Friedrich, initially agreed that they belonged with their mother. Her story has now changed. She told the children that everything had been given to their father, and that their mother was homeless and without a vehicle. (The children reported this information to their mother at the late December 2012 meeting.) Ms. Friedrich also informed the children that their mother was in a mental institution, in jail, had moved to Philadelphia, PA, had been fired from her job, and that mother’s whereabouts were unknown. Julie also told the children that their mother didn’t want them and that she was gone. She informed Dr. Gilbertson that no further contact between mother and children should take place. Mother has not been allowed to schedule any further visits with her children despite numerous
attempts.
The youngest child, 10 years old, has a significant medical condition that since his birth has been attended to solely by his mother. His complex medical issues include dealing with numerous doctors, surgeries, and providing day to day care and attention. Over the last 10 years mother has been the sole provider of his care along with his pediatrician, Dr. Tim Anderson, who in a letter and in a conversation with Guardian ad Litem Julie Friedrich, stated that his mother has been the sole provider of his medical care and in the best interest of the child he should be with his mother due to her history of care and knowledge of all factors relating to him. He is placed at risk without her care.
Mother was the beneficiary of a life insurance purchased by her father, now deceased, that provided $1.3 million for mother’s use. This total amount was exhausted in the spring of 2012 when mother was ordered by Judge Knutson to pay substantial amounts for attorney’s fees and debts that became hers as a result of the original judgment and decree. She is now Pro Se, unable to afford her own attorney.
When David Rucki failed to pay the court ordered child support, the state pulled his driver’s license. Judge Knutson wrote an order to child support and the state noting that David’s license was not to be revoked now or in the future. This ruling breaks state and federal law. His passport also was removed according to state and federal law due to child support arrears, yet Judge Knutson is attempting to over-rule federal law by reinstating his passport in defiance of the Dakota County District Attorney’s affidavit telling the judge that he cannot do this as he has no authority to over-rule the US Department of State. This is clearly our of Judge Knutson’s jurisdiction, yet he has scheduled a hearing on the matter.
Judge Knutson refused to order the normal parental arrangement where one parent has primary custody and the other parent visitation. He refused to follow Minnesota laws on parenting. He refused to give mother any due process or to follow court rules of procedure. There is no penalty or consequence to him because of his violation of law and other abuses. He is not accountable to anyone. Judge Knutson is actually a member of the Board of Judicial Standards where complaints against judges are sent! He has refused to remove himself from the case, denied a change of venue, and no action has been taken against him for the clear violations he has enforced. A letter of complaint about Judge Knutson’s actions to the Board of Judicial Standards from concerned citizens in the Burnsville, Lakeville, and Eagan area had no effect whatsoever. Clearly, this needs to be changed. There needs to be legislative oversight of the judiciary.

__________________________________________________________

Sandy Grazzini-Rucki was recently able to hire an attorney with the financial help of a close friend. Sandy retained a local attorney from the MacDonald Lawfirm in Minneapolis Minnesota. Link to pdf download of a scathing and impressive memorandum written by her attorney on behalf of Sandy and her children. LINK: MacDonald Lawfirm 90-3345

About these ads

Criminal Enterprise in Harris County (Houston, Texas)


Proof that the Harris County Family and Juvenile Court Judges and PUBLIC SERVANTS, attorneys, court-appointed attorneys and guardian ad-litem for children, clerks, commissioners, prosecutors, police, sheriff’s department, constables, mental health professionals, self-professed child-savers, counselors, safe access and visitation personnel are all in bed together

Exhibit A

HARRIS COUNTY CPS COLLABORATIVE REPORT

 

 

Exhibit B

http://www.hcjpd.org/annual_reports/2011.pdf

Harris County Juvenile Probation Department (Note Key “Stakeholders” and Picture of Judge Lisa Millard of the 310th Court, Not Pictured, but Associate Judge of the 313th Juvenile Court is Stephen Newhouse, former court-appointed amicus for child)

 

 

Federal Court in Ciavarella “Kids For Cash” Case Issues Groundbreaking Ruling: State Court Judge’s Acts Not Immune from Civil Conspiracy Causing Constitutional Violations


http://www.weightiermatter.com/carpe-dicta/judicial-ethics/ciavarella-kids-cash-court-issues-groundbreaking-ruling-state-court-judges-acts-immune-conspiracy-rico-claims/2676/

(Compliments of WeightierMatters.com)