Betty’s Baby Kidnapped by CPS (Short Video)


Betty’s Baby Kidnapped by CPS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=PvZCm1BnLsU

 

 Uploaded on Jun 21, 2008

Betty Power’s 1 day old Baby is KIDNAPPED by
THUGS from CPS, City Police, and the blessings
of Catholic Judge Garcia and alleged Lesbian Judge

Uploaded on Jun 21, 2008

Betty Power’s 1 day old Baby is KIDNAPPED by
THUGS from CPS, City Police, and the blessings
of Catholic Judge Garcia and alleged Lesbian Judge
Barbara Beck, who was in retirement. TV show OST
Exposed the CPS Kidnapping under-color-of-Law

Family Court Extortion – Sunny Kelley Story


Family Court Injustice

There are perhaps hundreds of parents like Sunny who have been bankrupted through the CT courts, essentially extorted out of a relationship with their children. Recently, journalist Keith Harmon Snow posted on his website a story listing over 70 cases involving mothers who were never found to be dangerous or unfit, but none the less lost custody after their children reported they were physically or sexually assaulted by their fathers. Mothers who continued to seek legal protection or medical treatment for the children’s injuries were ordered to pay supervised visitation centers to see their children. “

 Bethany, Connecticut: True story of how Sunny Kelley lost custody of her son, Max, after reporting physical and sexual abuse (with documentation, medical evidence and statements from Max to validate her claims). Family Court awarded sole custody to the abuser, and placed Sunny in supervised visitation. Sunny was bankrupted by the high cost of family court proceedings, and…

View original post 148 more words

RISK IN “SAFE” SUPERVISED “VISITATION” NEEDS ASSESSED


Image result for pics of child safety

RISK IN “SAFE” SUPERVISED ‘VISITATION'” NEEDS ASSESSED

Mr. Edward/”Ted” Taupier posed an interesting and telling question to the local supervised “visitation” center or pogrom of another name in Connecticut.  What is your level of insurance coverage for pedophiles or alleged pedophiles or abusers by another name?  The answer yielded Mr. Taupier home supervised “visits” with his own private property sometimes mistaken deceptively by the “state” as “children” or “wards” “disabled” due to age as opposed to the court-“ordered” public pay-per-view access awarded by the local court system and d/b/a judge___________.  Author of Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America and our Children who Want to Come Home tells America to ask the critical question of whether or not US Constitutionally impermissible to “order” and charge individual property-owners sometimes called “parents” by a profiteering “state” and “non-for-profit” joint public-private installations (un)”SAFE” (free stalking) centers and counties to pay to see one’s own private property. . . an extension of he/r own physical, corporeal vessel, genetics, intelligence, creativity, mannerisms, affectations, emotions . . . in a glorified jail for families.  Not asking and answering this critical question makes the downward slope on which America has been pushed even more slippery.  In history, we have seen this before.  Many did not make it.

Granted, the director of the local “visitation” center refused to answer the question by hanging up on Mr. Taupier and trying to refer him to another program listed in the telephone book.  Undeniably, however, Mr. Taupier’s orders in Taupier v. Taupier clearly “stated” that he and his property were to attend that specific program_____________.

The Connecticut “SAFE” “visitation” and “access” funded, and “state” and locally by county or borough/district/area/township/city/town social reform movement to overthrow and infiltrate all American systems of government, values, education, belief systems, religion, and culture in fact did not have the state insurance to stake and sustain or to foster a healthy “community partnership” in Ted’s private property or “children” in spite of its colorful “collaborative” policy and procedure “Memorandum of Understanding” which is common among most if not all supervised “visitation” pogroms around the US.  Just pick up your local phonebook and find the “state” insurance government office relevant to your current situation and inquire as to competent levels of risky pedophile/social worker “suspected” class insurance. Then, make the call to the “SAFE” prison to which you and your property have been US unconstitutionally “ordered” for state/local/county/judicial discretion tributary joint public-private profit that benefited everyone except you and your property and in fact depreciated its value, tremendously.  Remember to wish everyone a have a nice day with a smile in your voice because you are expected to be happy and grateful for their terrorism.

Without fail, pogram or “program” supervisors, directors, managers, and executive directors will tell their “clients” and “victims” that they have nothing to do with the court or the decisions of the court, but do threaten jail or police when questioned about the rate of referrals or clientele called-in by local BAR members and judges or domestic relations and offices of child support enforcement offices termed “friend of the court” (though, according to former Michigan member Carol Rhodes), “enemy of the family.”  This statistic especially relates to the unprofessional conduct of Cherie Menzies, Marinelle Timmons, and Tamisha Laster of “SAFE” Victim’s Assistance, Centre, Inc. in Harris County, Texas in City of Houston with regard to the little boy they sold out, Julian Jacob Worrell of Genealogy Saloom, artfully in some locations discounted “J.J.W.” or “J.W.” where no jurisdiction lies, nor could have and without, among other things, any imaginable con cept of due process or equal protections of US Constitutional and natural, unalienable, and inalienable laws of two American US “citizens,” sovereign and elect in nature, spirit, and essence, living and corporeal, imbued with the spirit our divine Creator ALMIGHTY GOD, Joni Saloom and he/r natural real private property deceptively kidnapped in collusion with other rogue criminals of whom they had been noticed under color of law for “state of Texas” on May 08, 2012 in City of Pearland, Brazoria County just outside of Houston (Harris County). It has been three years since Saloom and he/r only private property described as “Julian,” who is now eight years old, have had any meaningful communication as the parentally alienating, maternally depriving father, family and his wife continue to act as if they need supervised “visitation,” among other things, especially where false allegations of sexual abuse against himself he made or paid “play therapist” (licensed by CPS, who also runs “SAFE” visitation to keep an eye on their . . . “survivors” of the RICO family court con in Harris County in Houston, Texas) to otherwise manufacture, along with a couple other profitable lies.

In conclusion, “GET SMART,” and ask your local “SAFE” Victim’s Assistance Centre, Inc., as did Mr. Edward/”Ted” Taupier, “How is your level of pedophile protection insurance coverage TODAY.”

Fair Use and 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,

TEXAS BILL TO PASS THROUGH TO “PEACE” OFFICERS, VENDORS MUST DISCLOSE COMMISSIONS EARNED OTHER CPS VENDORS?


Texas House Bill 23


Bill Title: Relating to disclosure of certain relationships with local government officers and vendors; creating criminal offenses.

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Republican 1-0)

Status: (Introduced) 2015-04-09 – Scheduled for public hearing on . . . [HB23 Detail]

Download: Texas-2015-HB23-Introduced.html


84R10286 SCL-F
By: Davis of Harris H.B. No. 23
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to disclosure of certain relationships with local
government officers and vendors; creating criminal offenses.
       BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
       SECTION 1.  Section 176.001, Local Government Code, is
amended by amending Subdivisions (1), (2), (2-a), (2-b), (3), and
(4) and adding Subdivisions (2-c), (2-d), and (7) to read as
follows:
             (1)  “Agent” means a third party who undertakes to
transact some business or manage some affair for another person by
the authority or on account of the other person. The term includes
an employee.
             (2)  “Family member” means a person related to another
person within the first degree by consanguinity or affinity, as
described by Subchapter B, Chapter 573, Government Code[, except
that the term does not include a person who is considered to be
related to another person by affinity only as described by Section
573.024(b), Government Code].
             (2-a)  “Family relationship” means a relationship
between a person and another person within the third degree by
consanguinity or the second degree by affinity, as those terms are
defined by Subchapter B, Chapter 573, Government Code.
             (2-b) “Gift” means a benefit offered by a person,
including food, lodging, transportation, and entertainment
accepted as a guest.
             (2-c) “Goods” means personal property.
             (2-d) [(2-b)]  “Investment income” means dividends,
capital gains, or interest income generated from:
                   (A)  a personal or business:
                         (i)  checking or savings account;
                         (ii)  share draft or share account; or
                         (iii)  other similar account;
                   (B)  a personal or business investment; or
                   (C)  a personal or business loan.
             (3)  “Local governmental entity” means a county,
municipality, school district, charter school, junior college
district, water district created under Subchapter B, Chapter 49,
Water Code, or other political subdivision of this state or a local
government corporation, board, commission, district, or authority
to which a member is appointed by the commissioners court of a
county, the mayor of a municipality, or the governing body of a
municipality.  The term does not include an association,
corporation, or organization of governmental entities organized to
provide to its members education, assistance, products, or services
or to represent its members before the legislative, administrative,
or judicial branches of the state or federal government.
             (4)  “Local government officer” means:
                   (A)  a member of the governing body of a local
governmental entity;
                   (B)  a director, superintendent, administrator,
president, or other person designated as the executive officer of a
[the] local governmental entity; or
                   (C)  an agent [employee] of a local governmental
entity who is involved in the planning, advertising, selecting, or
contracting of a vendor [with respect to whom the local
governmental entity has, in accordance with Section 176.005,
extended the requirements of Sections 176.003 and 176.004].
             (7)  “Vendor” means a person who enters or seeks to
enter into a contract with a local governmental entity, seeks to
influence the contract award made by a local governmental entity,
or is an agent of a vendor. The term includes an officer or employee
of a state agency when that individual is acting in a private
capacity to enter into a contract. The term does not include a
state agency except for Texas Correctional Industries.
       SECTION 2.  The heading to Section 176.002, Local Government
Code, is amended to read as follows:
       Sec. 176.002.  APPLICABILITY TO [CERTAIN] VENDORS AND OTHER
PERSONS.
       SECTION 3.  Section 176.002(a), Local Government Code, is
amended to read as follows:
       (a)  This chapter applies to a person who is:
             (1)  a vendor [enters or seeks to enter into a contract
with a local governmental entity]; or
             (2)  a local government officer [is an agent] of [a
person described by Subdivision (1) in the person’s business with]
a local governmental entity.
       SECTION 4.  Sections 176.003(a) and (a-1), Local Government
Code, are amended to read as follows:
       (a)  A local government officer shall file a conflicts
disclosure statement with respect to a vendor [person described by
Section 176.002(a)] if:
             (1)  the vendor [person] enters into a contract with
the local governmental entity or the local governmental entity is
considering entering into a contract with the vendor [person]; and
             (2)  the vendor [person]:
                   (A)  has an employment or other business
relationship with the local government officer or a family member
of the officer that results in the officer or family member
receiving taxable income, other than investment income, that
exceeds $2,500 during the 12-month period preceding the date that
the officer becomes aware that:
                         (i)  a contract between the local
governmental entity and vendor [described by Subdivision (1)] has
been executed; or
                         (ii)  the local governmental entity is
considering entering into a contract with the vendor [person]; [or]
                   (B)  has given to the local government officer or
a family member of the officer one or more gifts that have an
aggregate value of more than $100 [$250] in the 12-month period
preceding the date the officer becomes aware that:
                         (i)  a contract between the local
governmental entity and vendor [described by Subdivision (1)] has
been executed; or
                         (ii)  the local governmental entity is
considering entering into a contract with the vendor; or
                   (C)  has a family relationship with the local
government officer [person].
       (a-1)  A local government officer is not required to file a
conflicts disclosure statement in relation to a gift accepted by
the officer or a family member of the officer if the gift is:
             (1)  [given by a family member of the person accepting
the gift;
             [(2)]  a political contribution as defined by Title 15,
Election Code; or
             (2) [(3)]  food[, lodging, transportation, or
entertainment] accepted as a guest.
       SECTION 5.  Section 176.004, Local Government Code, is
transferred to Section 176.003, Local Government Code,
redesignated as Section 176.003(e), Local Government Code, and
amended to read as follows:
       (e)  [Sec. 176.004.  CONTENTS OF DISCLOSURE STATEMENT.] The
commission shall adopt the conflicts disclosure statement for local
government officers for use under this section.  The conflicts
disclosure statement must include:
             (1)  a requirement that each local government officer
disclose:
                   (A)  an employment or other business relationship
described by Subsection (a)(2)(A) [Section 176.003(a)], including
the nature and extent of the relationship; and
                   (B)  gifts accepted by the local government
officer and any family member of the officer from a vendor [person
described by Section 176.002(a)] during the 12-month period
described by Subsection (a)(2)(B) [Section 176.003(a)(2)(B)] if
the aggregate value of the gifts, including lodging,
transportation, or entertainment [excluding gifts described by
Section 176.003(a-1)], accepted by the officer or a family member
from that vendor exceeds $100 [person exceed $250];
             (2)  an acknowledgment from the local government
officer that:
                   (A)  the disclosure applies to each family member
of the officer; and
                   (B)  the statement covers the 12-month period
described by Subsection (a)(2)(B) [Section 176.003(a)]; and
             (3)  the signature of the local government officer
acknowledging that the statement is made under oath under penalty
of perjury.
       SECTION 6.  Sections 176.006(a), (a-1), (b), (c), (d), and
(i), Local Government Code, are amended to read as follows:
       (a)  A vendor [person described by Section 176.002(a)] shall
file a completed conflict of interest questionnaire if the vendor
[person] has a business relationship with a local governmental
entity and:
             (1)  has an employment or other business relationship
with a local government [an] officer of that local governmental
entity, or a family member of the officer, described by Section
176.003(a)(2)(A); [or]
             (2)  has given a local government [an] officer of that
local governmental entity, or a family member of the officer, one or
more gifts with the aggregate value specified by Section
176.003(a)(2)(B), excluding any gift described by Section
176.003(a-1);
             (3)  has a family relationship with a local government
officer of that local governmental entity; or
             (4)  the amount of a contract that is either executed or
under consideration between the vendor and that local governmental
entity exceeds $1 million.
       (a-1)  The completed conflict of interest questionnaire must
be filed with the appropriate records administrator not later than
the seventh business day after the later of:
             (1)  the date that the vendor [person]:
                   (A)  begins discussions or negotiations to enter
into a contract with the local governmental entity; or
                   (B)  submits to the local governmental entity an
application, response to a request for proposals or bids,
correspondence, or another writing related to a potential contract
with the local governmental entity; or
             (2)  the date the vendor [person] becomes aware:
                   (A)  of an employment or other business
relationship with a local government officer, or a family member of
the officer, described by Subsection (a); [or]
                   (B)  that the vendor [person] has given one or
more gifts described by Subsection (a); or
                   (C)  of a family relationship with a local
government officer.
       (b)  The commission shall adopt a conflict of interest
questionnaire for use under this section that requires disclosure
of a vendor’s [person’s] business and family relationships with a
local governmental entity.
       (c)  The questionnaire adopted under Subsection (b) must
require, for the local governmental entity with respect to which
the questionnaire is filed, that the vendor [person] filing the
questionnaire:
             (1)  describe each employment or business and family
relationship the vendor [person] has with each local government
officer of the local governmental entity;
             (2)  identify each employment or business relationship
described by Subdivision (1) with respect to which the local
government officer receives, or is likely to receive, taxable
income, other than investment income, from the vendor [person
filing the questionnaire];
             (3)  identify each employment or business relationship
described by Subdivision (1) with respect to which the vendor
[person filing the questionnaire] receives, or is likely to
receive, taxable income, other than investment income, that:
                   (A)  is received from, or at the direction of, a
local government officer of the local governmental entity; and
                   (B)  is not received from the local governmental
entity; and
             (4)  describe each employment or business relationship
with a corporation or other business entity with respect to which a
local government officer of the local governmental entity:
                   (A)  serves as an officer or director; or
                   (B)  holds an ownership interest of one [10]
percent or more.
       (d)  A vendor [person described by Subsection (a)] shall file
an updated completed questionnaire with the appropriate records
administrator not later than  the seventh business day after the
date of an event that would make a statement in the questionnaire
incomplete or inaccurate.
       (i)  The validity of a contract between a vendor [person
described by Section 176.002] and a local governmental entity is
not affected solely because the vendor [person] fails to comply
with this section.
       SECTION 7.  Section 176.011, Local Government Code, is
redesignated as 176.0065, Local Government Code, and amended to
read as follows:
       Sec. 176.0065  [176.011].  MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS. A
records administrator shall:
             (1)  maintain a list of local government officers of
the local governmental entity and shall make that list available to
the public and any vendor who may be required to file a conflict of
interest questionnaire under Section 176.006; and
             (2)  maintain the statements and questionnaires that
are required to be filed under this chapter in accordance with the
local governmental entity’s records retention schedule.
       SECTION 8.  Chapter 176, Local Government Code, is amended
by adding Section 176.013 to read as follows:
       Sec. 176.013.  ENFORCEMENT. (a) A local government officer
commits an offense under this chapter if the officer:
             (1)  is required to file a conflicts disclosure
statement under Section 176.003; and
             (2)  fails to file the required conflicts disclosure
statement with the appropriate records administrator not later than
5 p.m. on the seventh business day after the date on which the
officer becomes aware of the facts that require the filing of the
statement.
       (b)  A vendor commits an offense under this chapter if the
vendor:
             (1)  is required to file a conflict of interest
questionnaire under Section 176.006; and
             (2)  either:
                   (A)  fails to file the required questionnaire with
the appropriate records administrator not later than 5 p.m. on the
seventh business day after the date on which the vendor becomes
aware of the facts that require the filing of the questionnaire; or
                   (B)  fails to file an updated questionnaire with
the appropriate records administrator not later than 5 p.m. on the
seventh business day after the date of an event that would make a
statement in a questionnaire previously filed by the vendor
incomplete or inaccurate.
       (c)  An offense under this chapter is:
             (1)  a Class C misdemeanor if the contract amount is
less than $1 million;
             (2)  a Class B misdemeanor if the contract amount is at
least $1 million but less than $5 million; or
             (3)  a Class A misdemeanor if the contract amount is at
least $5 million.
       (d)  A local governmental entity may reprimand, suspend, or
terminate the employment of an employee who knowingly fails to
comply with a requirement adopted under this chapter.
       (e)  The governing body of a local governmental entity may,
at its discretion, declare a contract void if the governing body
determines that a violation of this chapter has occurred.
       SECTION 9.  The following provisions of the Local Government
Code are repealed:
             (1)  Sections 176.003(c) and (d);
             (2)  Section 176.005;
             (3)  Sections 176.006(f), (g), and (h); and
             (4)  Section 176.007.
       SECTION 10.  As soon as practicable after the effective date
of this Act, the Texas Ethics Commission shall adopt forms to
implement this Act.
       SECTION 11.  (a) Chapter 176, Local Government Code, as
amended by this Act, applies only to an event requiring disclosure
that occurs on or after the effective date of this Act. An event
requiring disclosure that occurs before the effective date of this
Act is governed by the law applicable to the event immediately
before the effective date of this Act, and the former law is
continued in effect for that purpose.
       (b)  The repeal by this Act of Sections 176.003(c),
176.005(c), and 176.006(f), Local Government Code, does not apply
to an offense committed under those sections before the effective
date of the repeal. An offense committed before the effective date
of the repeal is governed by those sections as they existed on the
date the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in
effect for that purpose. For purposes of this subsection, an
offense was committed before the effective date of the repeal if any
element of the offense occurred before that date.
       SECTION 12.  This Act takes effect September 1, 2015.
Select area of search.
Bill Number:

Find an exact bill number.
Full Text Search:

Search bill text and data.

Bill Title: Relating to discussion or deliberation regarding certain economic development negotiations by governmental bodies.

  [Could this mean converting private property one’s only child if a single, natural (wo)man sometimes artfully termed “mother” by the “state” and local government where father makes offer/bribe as a vendor and CPS the other governmental entity????]
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 1-0)

Status: (Introduced) 2015-04-06 – Scheduled for public hearing on . . . [HB2518 Detail]

Download: Texas-2015-HB2518-Introduced.html


84R10335 SRS-F
By: Coleman H.B. No. 2518
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to discussion or deliberation regarding certain economic
development negotiations by governmental bodies.
       BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
       SECTION 1.  Section 551.087, Government Code, is amended to
read as follows:
       Sec. 551.087.  DELIBERATION REGARDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
NEGOTIATIONS; CLOSED MEETING. This chapter does not require a
governmental body to conduct an open meeting:
             (1)  to discuss or deliberate regarding commercial or
financial information that the governmental body has received from
a business prospect or another governmental entity that the
governmental body seeks to have locate, stay, or expand in or near
the territory of the governmental body and with which the
governmental body or the governmental entity providing the
financial information is conducting economic development
negotiations; or
             (2)  to deliberate the offer of a financial or other
incentive to a business prospect described by Subdivision (1).
       SECTION 2.  This Act takes effect September 1, 2015.
Select area of search.
Bill Number:

Find an exact bill number.
Full Text Search:

Search bill text and data. [help]

“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

Teachers to Diagnose Psychological Issues in Children then Report to Police| CORRUPT TX BILL


IF No Fault Divorce, then No Fault Childhood, Right.  WRONG!

Teachers to Diagnose Psychological Issues in Children then Report to Police

CORRUPT TEXAS

BILL SPONSORED BY TEXAS REPRESENTATIVE, JASON VILLALBAS (R-DALLAS)

Image result for PICS OF KIDS GOING TO JAIL

SEPARATE BUT EQUAL LAWS AGAIN? 

SO MUCH FOR UNITED COLORS OF BENETTON GETTING THE NEW SCHOOL UNIFORM CONTRACTS

NEW RULERS SAY NO MORE SPANKINGS IN SCHOOL . . .  NO MORE CHOICE OF POPS BY THE PRINCIPAL IN LIEU OF AFTER-SCHOOL DETENTION . . . THAT THE STUDENTS SHOULD BE TELLING PARENTS AND TEACHERS WHAT TO DO AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND, . . . TO “CATCH(MENT ZONE”) THEM WHEN THEIR GUARD IS DOWN???   I CALL THIS THE NEW TWILIGHT ZONE FOR THE NEW NAZIS! 

Teachers to Diagnose Psychological Issues in Children then Report to Police

CORRUPT TEXAS

BILL SPONSORED BY TEXAS REPRESENTATIVE, JASON VILLALBAS (R-DALLAS)

On the bright side, THOUGH, maybe it will actually get them reading, so they better learn it while they still can! 

Click on the link below, or otherwise cut and paste or enter manually into the browser to read more about the surreal life, from Texas below:

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/bill-teachers-diagnose-psychological-issues-children-report-police/

From the reporters who were actually allowed to inform the “public trust” about the public servant in Pharr, Texas (Hidalgo County) who allegedly raped a teenage girl multiple times while three police officer co-workers watched and “protected,”

Source:  The Free Thought Project, New Bill Would Have Teachers Diagnose Psychological Issues in Children and Report them to Police, Jay Syrmopoulos March 24, 2015

WHEN IN DOUBT, SOUND IT OUT; WHEN IN DOUBT, READ (T/READ)!

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/bill-teachers-diagnose-psychological-issues-children-report-police/#88vuAAYXTFSiWlku.99 (where “diagnosis” sounds like dia/g/og/gnossus/gnostic + “dia”/day/dei/deity/god/goddess/de/di/of)

AGE- END- A  21–SUSTAIN ABLE (JOB) GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROFESSIONS–LAW, SOCIAL WORKERS, GOVERNMENT AND CONTRACTED SERVICES, POLICE OFFICERS, AGE- N -CIES, “TEAC HER (HE/R PLACE WITH CHILD)” WARDENS, GRANT WRITERS GALORE–THE RIDDLE OF THE SPHINX IS FINALLY SOLVED! 

PROTECTIVE MOTHERS AND FATHERS, THIS IS WHY THEY CAN’T PULL CRIMINAL “RESPONSIBLE” FATHERS, FOSTER CARERS, AND CPS WORKERS OUT OF JAIL FAST ENOUGH TO CONVERT CUSTODY TO THE “RESPONSIBLE” PARENT, WITHOUT FAIL, AS A MATTER OF LAW AND POLICY, AND TO GET THEM HITCHED TO A WICKED STEPMOMMY OR STEPFATHER WHO COULD NEVER REALLY LOVE YOUR CHILD THE WAY YOU DO, THUS, RESULTING IN THE MAJORITY OF CHILD FATALITIES BEING FROM STEPPARENTS WHO WILL SURELY KEEP THESE KIDS IN THE SYSTEM–CHAIN/GENERATIONAL STYLE-GANG UNTIL THE AGE OF MAJORITY (21, AS IN, AGENDA 21) FOREVER CONFINED AND MADE TO BE “SUBJECTED” TO THE “DIGITAL PLANTATION,” AN ENDLESS CYCLE TO KEEP THE PROFESSIONS IN BUSINESS (AND THEIR TWO MILLION DOLLAR ANNUAL SUMMER DEPOSIT BRIBES FROM THE FARMER’S CLAIMS IN THE 1980’S THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO GO TO  HE THREE HUNDRED THIRTY-THREE (33) PLUS THOUSAND CLAIMS FOR FRAUDULENT FORECLOSURE IN THE MIDWEST THAT ALLEGEDLY, AS REPORTED ANYHOW, IN AS MUCH AS IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE (OR FALSE)!

THIS IS WHY INSIDERS AND AGENTS HAVE TRIED TO REASSURE SOME OF US, MUCH TO OUR BEWILDERMENT OF COURSE, THAT IF WE LOST CUSTODY IN THESE VERY SIMILAR, PATTERNED MIRROR CASES BEING ALL THE SAME IN ALL DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE US AND OTHER ENGLISH-SPEAKING COUNTRIES NOTORIOUS FOR THE SS, WE WERE DEFINITELY TARGETED AS THE GOOD PARENT WHO THE BAR AND PROFESSIONS HAVE THEORIZED WOULD, AND THOSE WHO HAD IT CERTAINLY DID,  SPEND EVERY LAST DIME THEY BEGGED, BORROWED, AND EARNED, GOING INTO DEBT TO THE ATTORNERS (ATTORNEY MEANS ONE WHO “TURNS OVER PROPERTY,” I BELIEVE WHICH DERIVES FROM THE MIDDLE ENGLISH FORM OF THE WORD) TRYING TO RESCUE THEIR MATERNALLY  DE-PRIVED/FUTURE DE-PRAVED) PRIVATE PROPERTY SOMETIMES REFERRED TO BY THE “STATE” AS “CHILD” FROM THE ALLEGED ABUSER OR ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSER (AS THE “PLAY THERAPISTS” LI-CENSED BY CPS FOR “STATE OF TEXAS,” MARCIA KLEINMAN STYLE, BUT NOT THE MOTHER THEY TRAIN JUDGES, POLICE, AND COURT-APPOINTED/”PONTIFICATED”/ROMAN PONTIFF TO THE POPE,  ATTORNEYS AND GUARD-IANS AND “MENTAL HEAL-TH/E/VALUATORS-UNQUALI-FIED(FEED/FIEFDOM/SERFDOM) TO THE (WO)MAN, JAN SMITH, WHOREPORTS/PURPORTS TO HAVE BEEN THE INVENTOR OF WHAT WE HAVE COME TO KNOW AS THE MODERN CPS “RISK ASSESSMENT” “LEVELS” TREATMENT INDICATORS FOR SIX INSTEAD OF THREE MONTH DI-VERS-ION/ARY TREATMENT PRO-G-RAMS (THINK PROGESTERONE AND MYTHOLOGICAL EGYPTIAN GOD “RAM/SES” OR ARIES IN THE ZODIAC SYSTEM) THOUGH JAN SMITH LOST HE/R GRAND(LODGE)CHILD(PRONOUN-CED CELTIC LIKE KILLED/CHI/CHE/LIFE FORCE)TO T/HE SAM (I AM) SY-STEM DE-SIGN UNDER  PRESSURE F-OM HE/R CPS SUPERVISER TO KEEP T/E PA-RENTS INT/HE MOSTLY SUB-STANCE/STANDING UNDER THE BAR ABUSE SE-R/VICESOR CRIM-IN-AL CON/VICT/IONS NOT NE-CESS-ARILY DE-NOTING THAT ONE IS NOT NECESSARILY A CRIMINAL, BUT IS ONE RATHER WHO INDICATORS FOR LEVELS FUNDING INDICATES CAN BE LEGALLY LEVERAGED FOR FEDERAL STATE BLOCK GRANT “HELPING”/”PROTECTING”/RE-HABBING/RE-INTEGRATING INTO THE WORKFORCE AND FATHER HOOD AND MARRIAGE  (MAKING THEM SUBJECT FOREVER TO THE STATE FAMILY COURTS AND STATE BAR CON THROUGH LICENSE, OR, “LICENTIOUSNESS”/MORAL, CRIMINAL, AND SEXUAL DEPRAVITY OF ORIGINAL SIN, IF NOT N-TO-P” IN S O(W)MAN-Y  O F/OUR CA-SES THAT T/HE $20,000 DE-RIV/ATIVE  ANN-U(ANUS OF THE OTHER HEART) THE $2,000,000,000 F-ARME/RS’ (ARME MEANS FREE/ARMY/LIBERATORS) CLAIMS FROM THE 80’S THAT FRAUDULENT FORECLOSURES ON 330,000  FARM CLAIMS WE-RE/WON BACK BY A GROUP OF ARMY GENERALS AND THE SON OF A FORT COLLINS, COLORADO FARMER WHO STARTED THIS ENTIRE CLAIM WORTH OVER EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS THAT THE FEDERAL US GOVERNMENT SAID THEY WOULD PAY OUT, BUT FOR THE THREE US CHIEF JUSTICES IN CHARGE OF THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, AS ALLEGED IN WELL-DOCUMENTED SEVEN YEARS WORTH OF RESEARCH BY A (WO)MAN WHOSE WORK I, Julian’s real mommy, took the liberty of posting on this b-log–“NESARA Law” hid away in Switzerland, the UK, and the Netherlands, I believe so that they could use it to bribe 533 of 535 members of the then Senate, as reported with a $200,000,000 bribe to usher in the agenda of the United Nations, “New World Order,” and overthrow the Federal, US Constitution and Bill of Rights who some  Benevolent “FOUR OR FIVE ‘VISIONARIES'” HAVE , AS REPORTED, BEEN TRYING TO RE-STORE SINCE the 1950’s.  Otherwise I think there is more truth than not, at least at first glance, though author trusts no one truly of this physical versus spiritual, heavenly  whorld/would/horus/the all-seeing eye or inner wisdom derived from the awakening physical, but not spiritual “death” when one experiences the descent of the pineal and pituitary glands from the back of the brain near the cerebellum, perhaps (I have to double-check on that one).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=N2c_UOIsLMQ

IF No Fault Divorce, then No Fault Childhood, Right.  WRONG!

Teachers to Diagnose Psychological Issues in Children then Report to Police

CORRUPT TEXAS

BILL SPONSORED BY TEXAS REPRESENTATIVE, JASON VILLALBAS (R-DALLAS)

Image result for PICS OF KIDS GOING TO JAIL

SEPARATE BUT EQUAL LAWS AGAIN? 

SO MUCH FOR UNITED COLORS OF BENETTON GETTING THE NEW SCHOOL UNIFORM CONTRACTS

NEW RULERS SAY NO MORE SPANKINGS IN SCHOOL . . .  NO MORE CHOICE OF POPS BY THE PRINCIPAL IN LIEU OF AFTER-SCHOOL DETENTION . . . THAT THE STUDENTS SHOULD BE TELLING PARENTS AND TEACHERS WHAT TO DO AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND, . . . TO “CATCH(MENT ZONE”) THEM WHEN THEIR GUARD IS DOWN???   I CALL THIS THE NEW TWILIGHT ZONE FOR THE NEW NAZIS! 

Teachers to Diagnose Psychological Issues in Children then Report to Police

CORRUPT TEXAS

BILL SPONSORED BY TEXAS REPRESENTATIVE, JASON VILLALBAS (R-DALLAS)

On the bright side, THOUGH, maybe it will actually get them reading, so they better learn it while they still can! 

Click on the link below, or otherwise cut and paste or enter manually into the browser to read more about the surreal life, from Texas below:

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/bill-teachers-diagnose-psychological-issues-children-report-police/

From the reporters who were actually allowed to inform the “public trust” about the public servant in Pharr, Texas (Hidalgo County/South Texas region close to the border) who allegedly raped a teenage girl multiple times while three police officer co-workers watched and “protected,”

Source:  The Free Thought Project, New Bill Would Have Teachers Diagnose Psychological Issues in Children and Report them to Police, Jay Syrmopoulos March 24, 2015

Read more at:

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,