TEXAS CUSTODY-SWITCH BILL, “S.B. 423,” NUNC PRO TUNC MANDATES SEXUAL ABUSE BY CPS


S.B. No. 423
S.B. No. 423
AN ACT
relating to the flexible response system for investigations of
child abuse or neglect reports by the Department of Family and
Protective Services.
       BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
       SECTION 1.  Section 261.3015, Family Code, is amended to
read as follows:
       Sec. 261.3015.  FLEXIBLE RESPONSE SYSTEM. (a)  In assigning
priorities and prescribing investigative procedures based on the
severity and immediacy of the alleged harm to a child under Section
261.301(d), the department shall establish a flexible response
system to allow the department to make the most effective use of
resources to investigate and respond to reported [by investigating
serious] cases of abuse and neglect.
       (b)  Notwithstanding Section 261.301, the department may, in
accordance with this section and department rules, conduct an
alternative response to a report of abuse or neglect if the report
does not:
             (1)  allege sexual abuse of a child;
             (2)  allege abuse or neglect that caused the death of a
child; or
             (3)  indicate a risk of serious physical injury or
immediate serious harm to a child.
       (c)  The department may administratively close a reported
case of abuse or neglect without completing the investigation or
alternative response and without providing services or making a
referral to another entity for assistance [and by screening out
less serious cases of abuse and neglect] if the department
determines, after contacting a professional or other credible
source, that the child’s safety can be assured without further
investigation, response, services, or assistance.
       (d)  In determining how to classify a reported case of abuse
or neglect under the flexible response system, the child’s safety
is the primary concern [The department may administratively close
the less serious cases without providing services or making a
referral to another entity for assistance.
       [(a-1)     For purposes of Subsection (a), a case is considered
to be a less serious case of abuse or neglect if the circumstances
of the case do not indicate an immediate risk of abuse or neglect
that could result in the death of or serious harm to the child who is
the subject of the case].
       [(b)]  The classification [under the flexible response
system] of a case may be changed as warranted by the circumstances.
       (e)  An alternative response to a report of abuse or neglect
must include:
             (1)  a safety assessment of the child who is the subject
of the report;
             (2)  an assessment of the child’s family; and
             (3)  in collaboration with the child’s family,
identification of any necessary and appropriate service or support
to reduce the risk of future harm to the child.
       (f)  An alternative response to a report of abuse or neglect
may not include a formal determination of whether the alleged abuse
or neglect occurred.
       (g) [(c)]  The department may implement the alternative
[flexible] response in one or more of the department’s
administrative regions before implementing the system statewide
[system by establishing a pilot program in a single department
service region]. The department shall study the results of the
system in the regions where the system has been implemented
[region] in determining the method by which to implement the system
statewide.
       SECTION 2.  Not later than December 1, 2013, the executive
commissioner of the Health and Human Services Commission shall
adopt the rules necessary to implement Section 261.3015, Family
Code, as amended by this Act.
       SECTION 3.  This Act takes effect September 1, 2013.
______________________________ ______________________________
   President of the Senate Speaker of the House
       I hereby certify that S.B. No. 423 passed the Senate on
April 4, 2013, by the following vote:  Yeas 30, Nays 0.
______________________________
Secretary of the Senate
       I hereby certify that S.B. No. 423 passed the House on
May 15, 2013, by the following vote:  Yeas 145, Nays 0, two
present not voting.
______________________________
Chief Clerk of the House
Approved:
______________________________
            Date
______________________________

Robin’s Story, and also for Matthew, Laura, and Christopher|Rockwall/Dallas, Texas


Sixteen Years Without Children and Life to Go

Robin Karr’s Story, and also for Laura, Matthew, and brother, Christopher Karr, who will not be silenced, that you shall come home to your Real Mommy who Refuses and Refused Offer of Silence–No Con tract, Judges!

Robin Karr.Rockwall.TX.Judge Cynthia Kent.any relation to federal impeached judge Samuel Kent who my sons paternal aunt was law clerk for.Supervised_Visit_Police_Station.242215910_std

Robin Karr with Baby Laura and Matthew Duckworth near Rockwall, Texas (near Fort Worth/Dallas, Texas)

Robin Carr.Rockwall.Tx.family court fraud and abuse.me-matthew-and-laura-2004-150x150

JUSTICE.WALL OF SHAME.NJCOURTCORRUPTION.DEREK SYPHRETT

 

JUDGE CYNTHIA KENT.SMITH COUNTY TX.TYLER.KIDNAPPER OF ROBIN KARR'S CHILDREN NEAR ROCKWALL TX SIXTEEN YEARS NO CONTACT

 Judge Cynthia (Stevens) Kent, ret., 114th court

Tyler, Texas

(SMITH COUNTY)

 Judge Sue Pirtle,

 NOT PICTURED FOR FEAR OR COWARDICE LEST S/HE, TOO, SHALL BE JUDGED BY GOD ALMIGHTY

Former Judge Sitting by Assignment (Visiting Judge)

State of Texas

January 2000 – Present (15 years 4 months)State of Texas (Region I)

Family, Civil, Criminal

DID WE HAVE THE SAME JUDGE, OR

JUST THE SAME FRAUDULENT FAMILY COURT R.I.C.O.

COURT CON?

 

The haunting melody of the nostalgic voice of the untimely, tragically gone, but not forgotten songstress, Karen Carpenter’s recording of “Yesterday Once More” is the soundtrack for the paralyzing feeling that what all of us mommies  who are still  reading  so strongly knew we were surely “imagining,” but could not be, the rote rehearsal style routine practice and patterned protocol and procedure suborned and commissions pre-packaged, pre-priced, pre-screened, pre-determined outcomes, the levels funding based kidnappings of our sweet little healthy, happy, adoptable children by the family courts in Texas, below:

Judge Cynthia Kent Grants Custody to an Abuser

 

January 5, 2000
Judge Cynthia Kent
c/o Elaine Holmes

RE: Cause No. 1-98-435 (382nd District Court, Rockwall County, Texas)
IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF EDWARD NEIL DUCKWORTH AND
ROBIN LEE DUCKWORTH AND THE INTEREST OF MATTHEW NAKAI
DUCKWORTH AND LAURA DANIELLE DUCKWORTH MINOR CHILDREN

Dear Judge Kent,

I am the co-founder of Children And Loving Parents (CALP)-a chartered non-profit organization located near Rockwall Texas. I am writing in an effort, to appeal to your knowledge, your wisdom, your faith, and your conscious. I am writing on behalf of Robin Duckworth, however, I am not writing at her request. This letter serves two purposes:

1) To serve as evidence in the Duckworth file that CALP is very concerned about the integrity of both the judicial system’s actions and the actions of CASA and CPS in Robin’s case, and;

2) to bring to surface a few facts that you may have never known at the time you rendered your verdict.

We believe that the Duckworth case has been filled with trickery, deceit, mockery, and cruelty -none of which are desirable attributes for our legal and judicial systems.

I am sure that you agree. Unfortunately, the one’s who have suffered are the innocent children and their grieving mother.

We attended many of the hearings regarding this case, including the last part of the final hearing that you presided over. I couldn’t help but notice your references to family and the importance of parents in the lives of their children.

Without a doubt, CALP agrees with you- if the parent is a safe and good influence upon the children. Yet, we are perplexed and saddened at the many successful attempts to thwart Robin Duckworth’s good intentions.

Even worse, we are upset that he court system has not recognized these ‘tricks’ used by Ed Duckworth and his attorney to intentionally make Robin’s life miserable.

My question is this. What would you do as a mother to protect your children if you thought they were living in an unstable and unsafe environment?

Even a stubborn, proud, ‘never ask for help’ man would humble himself to ask every available person for help – again and again. You and I probably wouldn’t do this for ourselves, but we would for our children. Isn’t this exactly what Robin has done? Is this so wrong?

At what point did Robin act so inappropriate that she deserved to have her children kept from her. Did she break the law? No. (She was put in jail for crying and not leaving the courtroom when Judge Pirtle and Trish Verde refused to advise her as to when she could have her next visitation. Is this really ‘irrational’ when a mother hasn’t seen or held her children in a very long time?

By the way, why was she arrested for criminal trespass when there were still many other people in the courthouse? Why weren’t the other people that were present arrested for trespassing?)

Does Robin have a history of running away with the children? No. Does she have a history of hurting the children? No. Does she have a history of disobeying the courts? No. (Ed’s attorney stated that Robin had told the Kentucky court that she would not abide by the visitation decree from her first marriage. She may or may not have said that .. but, what did she do? She abided by the visitation decree very well. She even notified, in writing, the Kentucky court within 2 weeks of when she moved to Houston. We are in possession of that letter. Unbelievably, Judge Pirtle did not allow that letter to be submitted into evidence.)

Now let’s compare the history of Ed and Robin. Robin graduated high school and college with honors. Ed barely passed high school. After almost 6 years in college he dropped out with a GP A below 2.0. Who held a job and supported the family?

Robin did. She worked at Dillard’s and excelled as a departmental manager. Ed failed to hold a job, including one stint as a car salesman. When they moved to Kentucky, Robin continued working at another clothing store. Ed attempted a gig as a local police officer, however he quit when faced with being tired for shooting and killing a chained dog.

While living in Kentucky Ed filed for divorce. In his affidavit to the court Ed stated Robin should be named the fit and proper caretaker of the children! He never alleged Robin of being unfit in any way as a mother.

However, wanting to salvage their marriage, Robin replied to the court that she did not believe their marriage to be beyond repair. (Wouldn’t anyone that takes their vows before God in a serious manner do all they could to save the marriage? Robin did – Ed didn’t.) Just think if Robin had given up as easily as Ed had, she would be the managing conservator of Matthew and Laura at this time.

Instead, Ed, his attorney, and the Texas judicial system have raked Robin over the coals and treated her like a criminally insane parent. Robin has always been the reliable provider for the children, yet she has been punished and ridiculed for her faith.

The reason: Supposedly she said something to Ed on a tape that was later played to Melody East, an unlicensed social worker with CASA. Melody East then recommended to Judge Pirtle that Robin have only supervised visitation because she expressed ‘alarming’ religious beliefs and had made ‘alarming’ remarks.

One such remark was, “I hope God takes your lives if you continue to harm the children.” How did this statement start ridiculous allegations that Robin might harm her children?

Personally, I also wish that God would remove all child abusers from the earth. Does this make me a danger to children? No. It doesn’t make Robin a danger to her children either.

Also, Melody East never completed the social study. She never interviewed Robin’s mother or Robin’s other references. Incredulously Melody never spoke to the number one witness Christopher Karr. Christopher is Robin’s son from her first marriage.

Christopher witnessed Earnest Duckworth’s (Ed’s father) verbal, mental and physical abuse first hand. In fact, Christopher had written several letters to friends about the abuse well before Robin moved out of the Duckworth house.

Wouldn’t these letters be undeniable evidence that abuse was taking place? Wouldn’t Christopher’s testimony have been the most important evidence in this case?

Yet, Melody East never spoke to Christopher or Robin’s other witnesses. In addition, Judge Pirtle would not allow Christopher’s letters into evidence.

Even mare appalling- Robin’s witnesses were never allowed to testify. All of her witnesses came to trial on Feb. 26, 1999. Robin had at least 4 witnesses including her mother, one cousin, Christopher, and a close friend from Houston who had known Robin and Ed when they lived there. Robin’s witnesses traveled a combined distance of almost 3000 miles.

Unbelievably, Judge Pirtle made no offer to let Robin’s witnesses testify since they had come such a great distance. Instead, Judge Pirtle allowed Ed’s attorney, Charles Schuerenburg, to ask questions (stall for time) to Melody East, Tish Verde, and others. Judge Pirtle knew that Robin could not afford to fly her witnesses down a second time.

We believe that Judge Pirtle knowingly and purposefully hindered Robin’s right to a fair trial by not giving her witnesses the opportunity to testify. Judge Pirtle even scheduled the second half of the trial nearly two weeks away, instead of the following Monday, insuring that Robin’s witnesses would not testify.

In addition, sanctions were imposed against Robin and her attorney for filing a supposedly ‘frivolous’ report to CPS and requesting a Protective Order concerning abuse that Robin felt had occurred at the hands of Ed’s father. (Perhaps, Judge Kent, you were not knowledgeable of all the facts when you sanctioned Robin. That is what we hope.)

Doesn’t state law require that a person must report confirmed or suspected abuse to a child?

Mr. Duckworth’s attorney tried to make Robin look like a liar, because she didn’t report the abuse at the time it happened. Instead, he stated that she was now conveniently making it up since there was a battle for the children. How absurd!

The facts show that Robin and Ed were living in the home of Mr. Duckworth at that believe they can protect their children until they can develop an escape plan away from the abuse. Once again, the facts show that Robin moved back to Kentucky shortly after the abuse.

Doesn’t the fact that every time Robin saw her children with substantial bruises (I have pictures.) and reoccurring sickness during each visitation also give cause for concern, suspicion and reporting?

Doesn’t the fact that the two children have been to the doctor and/or hospital 31 times in 10 months give rise to concern and suspicion? Doesn’t the fact that she witnessed abuse while living with Ed’s parents cause concern?

Doesn’t the fact that Christopher, Robin’s oldest son, wrote letters concerning the abuse to friends before the court case started (I have copies) give cause for concern and suspicion?

Doesn’t the fact that Christopher also signed an affidavit confirming the abuse give cause for concern and suspicion?

Betty Hable, director of the Ombudsman’s office, has even confirmed that CPS has concerns that the paternal grandfather was physically abusive toward Matthew.

We are very troubled that you fined and penalized Robin for reporting suspected abuse when she was faced with disobeying the law if she didn’t report her suspicions! We are even more upset with the fact that Robin is reprimanded from making any other allegations of suspected or confirmed abuse. I ask, is this justice?

How could this happen? How did Robin get fined for doing what is right? I know we all make mistakes. I’m willing to admit that I do. I hope that you too are willing to admit that you made a mistake in your judgements against Robin. I hope even more that you will do all you can in your judicial authority to correct this wrong and make it right. Robin is not an insane mother making improper allegations. She is a protective, caring, loving mother that wants to see her children in a safe, nurturing environment. Once again I ask. what would you do .. not as a judge – but as a Christian and a mother?

Now Robin faces yet another obstacle – meeting the demands of a visitation decree that is both confusing and extremely burdensome. In your judgement you stated that you believed Robin had a medical problem that required medication. Then, being sure of your evaluation, you based the decree upon Robin seeing a psychiatrist and taking the medicine that they would prescribe her. But what was to happen when Robin’s nationally acclaimed psychiatrist did not find Robin to be in need of medication- but only finds her to be severely depressed due to missing her children (a natural response for a concerned, loving mother)?

In addition, you required Robin to line up a psychiatrist within a month. Finding a psychologist is relatively easy but a psychiatrist can take months! (My wife and I have been searching for a psychiatrist to evaluate our daughter’s ADHD. The shortest waiting list we found was 5 months!)

It took Robin a month to line up her psychiatrist. ‘This automatically made her miss the first date (July 1) you had based her visitation rights upon.

However, since acquiring a psychiatrist she has tried to do everything stated concerning her psychiatric evaluations.

However, Ed’s attorney has written a letter stating that they will seek to have her thrown in jail for not following the order. In addition. Robin has not been able to afford trips to Texas to see her children.

She has another son that she must take care of. His father has not been paying child support, which makes things even more difficult for Robin. With the psychiatrist and expenses she has been forced to rely only upon phone calls to stay in her children’s lives.

But this has been made even more difficult due to the fact that Ed will not answer the phone and has turned off his answering machine – all in an effort to distance Robin’s children from her.

However, through all of this, Robin saved enough money to buy birthday and Christmas gifts and a plane ticket to Dallas during November. Once again, Robin did everything she thought she was supposed to do according to the visitation decree.

She sent letters to Ed and the District Clerk. by Nov. 1, 1999, concerning her psychiatric evaluation(s) so that she could see her children on Nov. 13·14.

She sent all letters certified mail. She took 4 days off work to come to Rockwall to see her children, even though Ed’s attorney, Charles Schuerenberg, threatened to get a bench warrant for her arrest if she came to Rockwall.

Despite all this, she still came to see her babies. If that’s not true love I don’t know what is. Upon arriving in Rockwall, Robin gave my wife and I a notarized statement to act as the competent adults to pick up the children -just as stated in the decree. We felt this would
definitely be better for the children since it would avoid any possible conflicts between Ed and Robin. Upon arriving at Ed’s house, Ed absolutely refused to hand over the children.

Ed then ran back into his house and called the police. When the police arrived Ed fabricated a lie and told the officers that he had spoken to Robin’s psychiatrist the day before and that her psychiatrist was sending a second letter forbidding Robin to see the children! We then asked the officers to ask Ed if he would allow Robin to see the children for a supervised visitation the next day.

The officers told my wife and I that Ed made it clear to them that he would never let Robin see the children again no matter what! The officers then advised us that we needed to keep a good paper trail of what had occurred. We were then told that Robin needed to go to the police station and file “Interference with Child Custody”, which is what she did.

Robin was never allowed to see her babies. Can you believe she has never been allowed to celebrate either of Laura’s birthdays? She has never celebrated Christmas with her either.

How discouraged would this make you feel as a mother? Yet, Robin somehow finds the courage and desire to hang in there. Robin loves and misses her children deeply.
Now Robin’s good intentions are once again being turned against her. Charles Schuerenberg has written Robin to threaten her again. He is using the visitation decree that he wrote, against her.

He stated that he intends to have her thrown in jail. I believe this is revenge for Robin filing “Interference with Child Custody” against Ed. What Ed did was wrong and downright mean!

Robin came 1200 miles to see her children, hold them, love them, and give them gifts.
Your honor, please listen to your heart on this matter. Robin is really doing her best. If shemoves here from Kentucky, her older son can’t see his dad. Either way, she gets slammed.

So she does her best. You even stated in your final words of the hearing that the order periods of possession would “be subject to very definitely financial ability.”

This tells me that you were trying to recognize Robin’s peril in paying for psychiatric sessions, making expensive trips to Texas, taking off from work, and juggling all the issues.

We are asking that you reconsider your order. We don’t believe that you ever meant to say Robin could not see her children in November if she didn’t get every psychiatric report completed in July.

It seems to us that you were saying Robin’s visitations were to be based upon her complying with her psychiatrist’s orders then submitting that compliancy letter from the psychiatrist before she attempted visitation.

If your order were interpreted in any other way then Robin’s inability to see a psychiatrist by July 1, 1999 would prohibit her from ever seeing her children again.

I do not believe that you is what you intended. However, Ed’s attorney is trying to have Robin thrown in jail based upon his manipulation of the visitation decree.

Robin had no choice but to file “Interference with Child Custody” against Ed. His actions as dictated by Texas state law are a criminal act, not a civil act.

Therefore, Robin had aresponsibility to file a report even though she did not obtain leave of court to do so. Robin’s report to the Rockwall police was not merely a ‘complaint’ but was a witness’ statement to a felony crime. The police made the choice to ask the D.A. ‘s office to bring charges against Ed.

We hope and pray that you will see things the same and not allow your instinct as a mother, a Christian, and a parent, to be clouded by your judicial experience in today’s corrupt society.

Sincerely,
Derek S.
Co-Founder and V.P.

Read also, http://janiemcqueen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Judgee-Pirtle-Wanted-for-Kidnapping.pdf

1.     Click on the link below to read mother and author, Robin Karr’s provocative case supported by strong evidence against, generally, but not limited to, “‘state’ of Texas,” and also on behalf of all maternally deprived mothers and children, being natural (wo)man and individuals,

http://www.motherswithoutcustodyworld.com

2.     Click on the link below to read Kentucky Senator Virgil Moore’s scathing letter against and addressed to, among other public officials, “state” and local Texas and social services and county officials on behalf of parents Doug and Kathie Harliss and their “business or commercial assets,”

http://www.motherswithoutcustodyworld.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Kentuky_State_Senator_Letter_about_Texas_Taking_Children.250130237.pdf\

Mothers Without Custody World

Laura Turns Sweet 16

 

 

Robin Karr.precious Laura found.on facebook

Robin Karr’s Baby Laura, Sixteen Years Later, Found Picture on Facebook.com

Dear Laura, will you ever know how much your real Mommy, Robin Karr, loved, adored, and missed you every second of every minute of every day and painful, agonizing, most likely sleepless nights?  How could you?

Dear Robin, will you ever know what your little girl felt or the pain she felt without you?

How could she?

I I pray and hope with all ;my heart and real mommy of little Julian’s soul that you, Laura have come home to Mommy, whatever age.

From one to another mother whose child bought and sold  just shall surely find them out.

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.

PROBLEMS WITH CPS


RE-POSTING, RE-POSTING, RE-POSTING

SIGNS.INJUSTICE.NO CPS

PROBLEMS WITH DCFS/CPS

LA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REPORT

CHILDREN’S SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

Published: Feb. 12, 2013

http://documents.latimes.com/report-severe-problems-los-angeles-county-department-children-and-family-services/

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,

A RECORD OF U.S. FAMILY COURTS SACRIFICING MOTHERS & CHILDREN


RE-POSTED/RE-BLOGGED AS DEPICTED BELOW,

A RECORD OF U.S. FAMILY COURTS SACRIFICING MOTHERS & CHILDREN

Family Courts Behind an Epidemic of Pedophilia & Judicial Abuse

Posted 23 January 2013

The below-referenced chart lists over 75 family court cases in Connecticut where children’s safety and well being has been jeopardized by unethical and even illegal activities of court professionals who routinely target, extort and exploit Connecticut
mothers.  In many of these cases, where mothers reported a father’s violent crimes against her family, the mother eventually lost custody to the wealthier father when he — the real perpetrator — accused her of alienation.  Violent fathers almost always won sole or joint custody of victims, and in some cases these fathers even went on to become mass murderers.  Insurance companies and the State are being defrauded by medical and mental health professionals who are routinely rewarded handsomely for submitting false claims that misdiagnose fit and loving mothers and their children with mental disorders they do not have; they are also providing diagnosis and treatment plans that are considered illegitimate by the AMA and APA.  Meanwhile, the same professionals justify their billing by deliberately recommending to judges the placement of children in the care of violent fathers, even rapists, and by shielding these offenders from criminal prosecution that might otherwise keep children safe.  The effect is that the whole family becomes damaged and in need of treatment, and are subsequently required to obtain ongoing court affiliated medical and legal professional services.

Some of these cases were outlined in the May 2012 Conscious Being Alliance story A Life Sentence.  The summary of cases spans the past 20 years, with older and newer cases, and where many cases

were drawn out over a decade, or more.

CT COURT CASES HISTORIES & SUMMARIES:

Click link here:
CT Cases Spreadsheet (2-28-2013).xlsx

PHOTO:
MAX LIBERTI.  (See: LIBERTI V. LIBERTI summary.)

 

MAx-Liberti-Photo.jpg

Written by: keith harmon snow

Categories: ,

 

16 Comments

melissa harris | January 29, 2013 2:57 PM

This has happened to me I would like to be part of this also where do I file complaints against lawyers n family service division I reported to the mediators supervision but nothing . So I want to file above the court .my case was in Hartford ct. Thank u for your time sincerely Melissa Harris 860-977-3941 cell or home 860-206-9208 Donna yanofsky I give full permission to talk to her on my behalf

adrienne mcglone | February 12, 2013 5:31 PM

• Give a gift of your signature as support in the battle to stop the corruption in probate and family courts that harm and destory our children and families. Join the Petition Signature-A-Thon.

http://www.change.org/petitions/the-governor-of-ma-help-get-child-home
http://www.alexissneedshelp.blogspot.com/

Amy Andersen | February 14, 2013 1:39 PM

Exactly this happened to me also!! I lost custody of my daughter to my abusive ex husband for one reason ONLY,, HE IS VERY WEALTHY! I never so much as received a parking ticket. What happened to my daughter and I was COMPLETELY ILLEGAL IN EVERY WAY! I want very much to be part of this, but I do not know where to start or who to contact. Melissa, I would like to speak with you also if you are willing. Maby we can share information because we both are going through the same nightmare! Please call me and let me know what I can do and where I can start.
Respectfully,
Amy Andersen (203) 269-6114

Jodi Baker | February 24, 2013 4:33 PM

The same situation happened to me. I am looking to make changes in the CT family court system especially New Haven County.

Kendra | April 26, 2013 7:33 PM

Below is a proposed class action lawsuit we can file at 95 Washington Street. Melissa, do you want to take the lead?

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
COUNTY OF HARTFORD
————————————————————-x VERIFIED COMPLAINT
JANE DOE 1- XXX
Plaintiff, Index No.:
-against-

Dr. Howard Krieger; Dr. Kenneth Robson,
Dr. Sidney Horowitz; Atty. Steven Dembo;
Atty. Noah Eisenhandler, Jane Does 1-IV and
John Does I-IV.
Defendants
—————————————————————x
SIRS:
The Plaintiffs complaining of the Dr. Howard Krieger; Dr. Kenneth Robson; Dr. Sidney Horowitz; Atty. Steven Dembo; Atty. Noah Eisenhandler; Jane Does 1-IV and John Does I-IV (hereinafter “Defendants”), sets forth and alleges upon information and belief as follows:
1. That at all times hereinafter mentioned Plaintiffs are normal, healthy parents who have endured abnormal and unfathomable circumstances in child custody proceedings.
2. That at all times hereinafter mentioned Defendants intentionally inflicted emotional suffering on Plaintiffs and defamed Plaintiffs for the benefit of increasing conflict in child custody disputes for financial gain and/or job security.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION IN INTENTIONAL INFLICTION
OF EMOTIONAL SUFFERING

3. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges the allegations listed in paragraphs “1” through “2” as though more fully alleged herein.
4. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013, Defendants emotionally abused Plaintiffs via heinous conduct beyond the standards of civilized decency.
5. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013, Defendants advocated and endorsed the use of domestic abuse and domestic discipline in child custody proceedings.
6. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013, Defendants aided and abetted fathers in feigning allegations to place plaintiffs under supervised visitation or otherwise reduce their access to children, alleging “mental illness”, “emotional abuse” or “parental alienation”.
7. That at all times relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants slandered, abused, ridiculed, harassed, ignored, humiliated, threatened, attacked and/or financially devastated Plaintiffs.
8. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants blatantly disregarded the rules, manipulated information, falsified evidence, harassed and bullied Plaintiffs.
9. That at all times relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants financial, emotional and legal abuse of Plaintiffs was intentional, deliberate and/or reckless.
10. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants used the fruits of their abuse to claim that Plaintiffs were “erratic, unstable and unpredictable”.
11. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants endorsed the wealthier parent as primary parents to keep their revenue steam coming via fathers contesting custody of children against stay at home mothers.
12. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013, Plaintiffs sustained severe emotional damages and loss of custody of their children in monetary amounts in excess of all of the jurisdictional limits of the lower courts.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION IN UNJUST ENRICHMENT

13. Plaintiff repeats reiterates and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs “1” though “12” as though more fully set forth herein.
14. That at all times relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants increased conflict in custody disputes for the benefit of their professional fees, job security and/or revenue stream.
15. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants were unjustly enriched by receiving professional fees, income or expenses on account of their improper conduct.
16. That prior to April 26, 2013, Defendants Dr. Howard Krieger and Dr. Sidney Horowitz were sanctioned for committing insurance fraud against Aetna Insurance.
17. Plaintiffs seek restitution of attorney fees and expert fees incurred as a result of defendants’ unjust enrichment, which is in excess of all of the jurisdictional limits of the lower courts.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION IN DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER

18. Plaintiff repeats reiterates and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs “1” though “17” as though more fully set forth herein.
19. That at all times relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants published false statements about Plaintiffs.
20. That at all times relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants’ false statements lowered the characters of Plaintiffs in the eyes of others.
21. That at all relevant time prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants slandered, abused, ridiculed, harassed, ignored, humiliated, threatened, attacked and/or financially devastated Plaintiffs in an attempt to substantiate their false statements.
22. That Defendants intentionally inflicted emotional harm on Plaintiffs by facing them with an abusive ex-husband, fear of their children being harmed or removed and a bombardment of medico-legal allegations to substantiate their allegations of “erratic, unstable and unpredictable” behaviors.
23. That Plaintiffs’ were damaged by Defendants’ false statements and intentional infliction of emotional suffering in amounts in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the lower courts.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION IN DISCRIMINATION

24. Plaintiffs repeat reiterate and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs “1” though “23” as though more fully set forth herein.
25. That Plaintiffs have been discriminated against on account of being stay at home mothers prior to the commencement of litigation. Defendants sided with the parent who had the most money to purchase their children.
26. That Plaintiffs sustained damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the lower courts on account of this unlawful socio-economic discrimination.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Court enter an award:
(a) Enjoining and permanently restraining Defendants from intentionally inflicting emotional suffering, discriminating against and defaming the characters of Plaintiffs;
(b) Awarding Plaintiffs’ damages in excess of twenty (20) million dollars;
(c) Awarding Plaintiffs’ attorney fees and expert fees involved in pressing this action;
(d) Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper.

Yours etc

________________________________

VERIFICATION

STATE OF CONNECTICUT )
) ss.:
COUNTY OF HARTFORD )
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
being duly sworn, deposes and says: We are the plaintiffs in the within action; We have read the foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof; the same is true to my knowledge, except as to the matters stated therein to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters we believe them to be true.

__________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sworn to before me on this
day of April 2013

Notary Public, State of Connecticut

___________________

T. Moore | April 27, 2013 10:05 AM

My case is still pending … I’m ready to keep up the battle and win the war … it’s been years and I refuse to just walk away – I’ve been w/one of the above Dr. during “Special Masters” …

kendra | April 27, 2013 11:47 AM

Attorneys with a strategy which involves inflicting emotional and financial pain on mothers to make them “erratic, unstable and unpredictable” should be reported to the Grievance Committee so that they are disbarred for a violation of Rule 8.4 (4) for conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. The precedence their strategy sets is that a man is encouraged to abuse the mother of his children so that the attorneys can keep their revenue stream going despite the impact this has on mothers and resultantly on their children. Grievance forms can be found here:
http://www.jud.ct.gov/webforms/forms/gc006.pdf

Kendra | April 27, 2013 12:01 PM

Amy – You can add in defendants Judge Pulver and Atty Hilscher. As you reside in Connecticut, the action can be venued in Connecticut. We may have to bring it in Federal District Court and add in the Constitutional arguments.

Kendra | April 27, 2013 12:02 PM

Amy – You can add in defendants Judge Pulver and Atty Hilscher. As you reside in Connecticut, the action can be venued in Connecticut. We may have to bring it in Federal District Court and add in the Constitutional arguments.

Kendra | April 27, 2013 12:03 PM

Amy – You can add in defendants Judge Pulver and Atty Hilscher. As you reside in Connecticut, the action can be venued in Connecticut. We may have to bring it in Federal District Court and add in the Constitutional arguments.

Colleen Kerwick | June 1, 2013 3:52 PM

Here is a link to my Confessions of a Stepford Wife blog. Feel free to check into my path as I find the silver lining from my journey through the Connecticut Court System. Whatever doesn’t kill us makes us stronger so I’m hoping that this will be a happy story of transformation and growth.

Sara Burns | June 28, 2013 8:00 PM

I have a significant background in Business Communications and PR and would like to contribute my files for case … amazing how many people can abuse the system for years with a documented list of offenses and still be able to misuse the system to their private advances.

Concerned Mother | August 23, 2013 9:41 PM

A person is guilty under 2011 Connecticut Code Title 53 Crimes Chapter 939
Sec. 53-21 (3) if they “permanently transfer the legal or physical custody of a child under the age of sixteen years to another person for money or other valuable consideration”… such person “shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of which five years of the sentence imposed may not be suspended or reduced by the court”. Has anyone asked the DA to issue a warrant for the arrest of some members of the custody business?

Ron | July 19, 2014 11:38 AM

Keith, This is information which is tragically in sync with what I’ve read from other researchers regarding pedophilia rings and subsequent cover-ups occurring WORLDWIDE. Have you read Dave McGowan’s work entitled “Pedophocracy”? It’s not surprising one bit to learn that the courts are involved in the corruption as are politicans—ETC. I am reminded also of the late Ted Gunderson, former FBI agent who became Aware, shall we say–are you aware of his investigations regarding child abuse? What is bad, evil in society is vigorously protected and encouraged by the System.

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

     Nothing contained in this post or on this blog, Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and our Children Who Want to Come Home, and and especially for my little Julian, could be (mis)construed as “legal advice” of any kind as author of this post is expressly NOT a lawyer, attorney, or legal practitioner.

  • CENSORSHIP and censorship shall be challenged strongly as censorship, being in breach of, among so many other unlawful acts and omissions, is a violation of sometimes described as “Julian’s Real Mummy’s” First Amendment u.S Constitutional right to the free exercise of speech, and also to peaceably assemble herein and also to freely exercise whatever religion, if any, that said natural, American u.S “citizen,” “citizen” meaning fo the purposes of this post. conditionally as i, being natural (wo)man, individual, living and corporeal body,  exclusively reserve the right to revoke or rescind the offer at any and all times, inherently “sovereign” and “elect” in nature, spirit, and essence because imbued with the spirit of our divine Creator ALMIGHTY GOD. ;
  • (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 Federa, u.S. Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal,u.S Constitution and its  Bill of Rights, pursuant to the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.;
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.;
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, and Author will be happy to follow the law and respect your wishes.
Name:
Email Address:
URL:
Remember Personal Info?
Comments:
Captcha:

Donate to this Project

Search

Disabled Mother Deprived of Her Children, Discriminatory Hate Crimes in U.S.


Disabled Mother Deprived of Her Children,

Discriminatory Hate Crimes in U.S.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6lCpBwDt1o&feature=player_detailpage

Posted by: Mamasuntwinkle on Youtube.com, April 15, 2010mamasuntwinkle

Uploaded on Apr 15, 2010

Fighting for a Disabled Mother’s Right to See Her Children; After a Mother’s Brain Injury Following Childbirth, Her Family Fights for Her to See Her Triplets. April 14, 2010, ABC news. Growing up, Abbie Dorn always dreamed of becoming a mother. Now, at age 34, she is the mother of three healthy toddlers. Her home is filled with pictures of the children, triplets named Esti, Reuvi and Yossi.

But in the 4 years since her children were born, Dorn has not been able to talk to them. She can’t hold them or watch them play. That’s because Dorn endured severe brain damage following their birth.
Now, while her children run and play in their Los Angeles home, Dorn’s family, more than 2,500 miles away in Myrtle Beach, S.C., is locked in a legal battle with the children’s father to grant Dorn the right to see her children.
The family’s lawsuit, which could make its way to a courtroom by May, could become a landmark in defining what it means to be a parent, especially when that parent is disabled.
After graduating from college in Ohio and becoming a chiropractor in Atlanta, she married Dan Dorn, a devoutly religious man who shared her beliefs in Orthodox Judaism. They settled in Los Angeles near his family, and began to plan a family of their own. But Dorn struggled to conceive. After turning to fertility treatments, she finally received word in the fall of 2005 that she was expecting triplets. “She was so excited to be pregnant, she was beginning to say, ‘I don’t know if I’ll ever get to be a mother,'” Dorn’s mother, Susan Cohen, said.
Happiness turned to heartbreak after Dorn delivered the three children. What happened in the hospital in the hours after the triplets were born is not clear. And the case was eventually settled out of court for more than $7 million. What the family does know is that Dorn began bleeding internally. Her injury was not caught soon enough, and after a series of missteps, Dorn’s brain was deprived of oxygen, leaving her severely brain damaged. Since the day her three children were born, Dorn has required around-the-clock care. She can’t speak or move on her own, and she remains in bed unless one of her caretakers moves her to a chair. Dorn spent nearly a year in hospital and rehabilitation care in California near her children.
On the anniversary of his wife’s injury, Dan called Dorn’s parents. “He said, ‘Well I need to move on,'” said Paul Cohen. Dorn’s husband eventually divorced her in 2007. In court documents, his attorney said he was “faced with the necessity of beginning to rebuild his life.”
Since the divorce, Abbie Dorn has been moved to her parents’ home in Myrtle Beach, where she undergoes a daily regime of therapies and rehab.
Dorn’s now ex-husband has refused to bring the children to see her. They said he refuses to send videos or to allow Dorn to see the children via webcam.
Dan’s attorneys argue that exposing the children to their severely disabled mother would traumatize them. Medical experts hired by his attorneys to review her records said she would never recover.
But Dorn’s parents say Dan Dorn’s experts are looking at old records, and that after years of rehabilitation, it is clear she has brain function, can understand when people talk to her and can read short passages. Having devoted the past five years to her rehabilitation, Susan and Paul Cohen believe their daughter communicates through her eyes. They say when Dorn has one long blink it means “yes.” When she is in pain, she cries out. When she is happy, they say, she can smile. Her eyes follow movements in the room. Her caretakers say several times a day she will say “yeah” or “no” in response to direct questions.
Legal Battle Over Children of a Disabled Parent
ABC News spent a day with Dorn and watched her undergo therapy. When asked if seeing her children was important to her, Dorn replied with a long blink.
“A mother needs to see her children, she gave them life,” Paul Cohen said. “Her blood is in their veins. These children need to know they have a mommy and she needs to know her children are growing.”
The family’s lawyer argues that Dorn has rights that have been ignored. “Abbie has a right, a constitutional, legal right to have her parents, her own representatives, to request visitation on her behalf,” Lisa Helfend, an attorney for Dorn and her parents, said.
Dorn’s mother believes her daughter is still “there,” saying Dorn cries, smirks and even smiles. “I know that Abbie is there … it’s well beyond a mother’s love,” Susan Cohen said.
“If all she can say to them is one or two words and show in her eyes how much she loves them, I think that will mean a great deal to those children,” Susan Cohen said.
ABC News’ requests for an interview with Dan Dorn were declined.

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,

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/brain-injur…

Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation
http://www.terrisfight.org/

The ex-husband is an ignorant fool.  Children do better if they are exposed to all kinds of people, including the disabled.  Understanding prevents bigotry and discrimination of people just because they don’t look like us.  He’s not only doing a great wrong to his ex-wife, he is doing an equally great wrong to his children.

She probably could have recovered a lot more if she had her children around her! This is horrible!!

Recovery would be significantly enhanced if she were enabled to see her children on a regular basis

Come on let her see her children she gave them life his really being a jerk …

So sad 😦😦😸

Sadly, the disabled are NOT respected in the United States, regardless if parent or child.

well  then that needs to change now would be a good time.

What comes around goes around. God will make him pay

Tear jerker 😦

DAN IS A EFFING BASTARD!! SOME HUSBAND!! HE COULD NOT EVEN STAY FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE. MEN, IF YOU DO THIS EVIL TO THE WOMAN YOU MARRY AND SHE GETS SICK LIKE THAT, YOU WILL GO TO HELL AND YOUR CHILDREN WILL HATE YOU IN THE END JUST AS THE CHILDREN WILL HATE DAN. AND THEY WILL. I AM GLAD THEY TELEVISED THIS BECAUSE THE KIDS WILL SEE THIS IN TIME> THEY SHOULD KEEP THIS ON DVD SO THAT THE KIDS WILL GET THIS IN A LIVING WILL THROUGH HER ATTORNEY. PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO THIS FAMILY AND LET THEM KNOW. I AM REALLY ANGRY ABOUT THIS ANSD EVERY ONE OF YOU SHOULD BE ALSO!!!!!!!!!!!DAN IS A BASTARD AND HE LIED WHEN HE TOOK HIS VOWS. THIS MOTHER HAS THE RIGHT TO VISIT WITH HER CHILDREN WHEN HER PARENTS OR REPRESENTATIVE IS PRESENT. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO DEVISE A COMPREHENSIVE LIVING WILL FOR EACH CHILD TO BE GIVEN WHEN THEY TURN OF AGE TO SHOW THEM THAT THEIR MOMMY ALMOST DIED FOR THEM! UGH!! THIS PISSES ME OFF, DAN IS EVIL!!!

HOW CAN WE HELP THIS WOMAN!!!!!!! SOMEBODY?????

NOT FAIR! DAD let those children KNOW THEIR MOTHER!

“You have no right to have a lawyer, you have no right to have your home, all your families possessions fraudulently taking from you and put on the lawn with a free sign. Forced into homelessness, just after major spine surgeries with no immunity. Using a walker You are NOT allowed to speak while a plaintiff.  Evidence will be refused. All motions DENIED. You have no right to protect your child, against the school that excludes her, provokes her to hysteria ,forces her into a dark cement room, not allowed to call home. Your concerns, ideas, inputs  ignored because “you are disabled your disability has a negative affect on your daughter” you have no right to speak, have witnesses, the only right you have is to be emotionally, verbally violated, slandered, discriminated, blamed for your disability, we  lie to you and about you, and include the invented “mental”  disabilities .  Your disabled child used as a pawn, weapon, because you made formal complaints against abuse to your family and for that, the child you love and care for is fraudulently judicially kidnapped. you are locked out of your paid apartment on the way back from your doctor regardless of how much physical pain you are in, how exhausted you are, how hungry you are. We stop you from getting medical attention even though you claimed you lost the use of your legs, and needed to get to your doctor. instead you are detained in your hot car ,humiliated, interrogated, sweat soaking your clothes. we even called your doctor, force you to have a blood test, charge you w a dwi, even though you don’t drink,  we take the car you only drove 6  times, you have no money so your car is impounded, your SSI DI is still going to the “benefits coordinator” That was forced to resign for violating the laws and rules of a paid rep payee. In the letter of resignation she stated “you are incompetent”, yet she was caught defrauding SSI di and paid too. after the embarrassing charge for the DWI, release you , barely able to walk, sick, in unbearable physical, emotional pain. because “you are disabled” Its dark out , nowhere to go, so sick you don’t remember collapsing, then several days later waking in critical condition in a ICU, the doors closed due to the severe community acquired pneumonia you have and the shock. your temp reaches 104.8. a spine doctor comes in and says “you are not a candidate for surgery” then leaves after giving some mediation for the unbearable pain caused by reconstructed spine surgeries, that were unsuccessful. You “missed the court date because you are on a ventilator, so your license  is suspended . Your daughter is in a foster home. As soon as you move closer to her she is moved across the state. You can only see your child under “supervision” because you tried to protect your child and for that you are a “bad parent” you and your child are hated because of the way you look. You are female with obvious physical differences YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS in the State of New Hampshire. The only right you have is to be tortured. A year has passed, still looking for a permanent 2 bedroom home . You just went trough more landlord hell who at the last minute after receiving money changed his mind ,he didn’t want to “clean his chimney”, He didn’t like the idea that you may have a paid helper. In VT. Everything I ever believed of was told is nothing but a LIE!  A American disabled  mom with a American  disabled child TORTURED BY HATE.

No doubt that bastard would have walked if his kids were disabled too! The new generation is much more accepting than the ones that institutionalised and hid our disabled people. He is cruel. Give them the option of loving their mum. No doubt they can, even if he is too shallow.

Wow really what happened to “for better or for worse”? Dads a dick…

what happened to the vows” in sickness and in  heatlh? A child will loves his/her mom no matter what. Dad is so wrong.I hope she gets to see her kids soon.

Don’t EVER keep the truth from a child, regardless of what that truth is. I’ve seen first had what happens when people lie.

awesome parents, not so awesome husband. parents should check out Family Hope Center http://www.familyhopecenter.org/
Show more

LORI HANDRAHAN AND MILA’S CASE IN MAINE


RE-POSTING FROM BLOG BELOW . . .

bECAUSE IT APPEARS THERE HAVE BEEN SOME MINUTE DETAILS THAT CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS DID OR DID NOT MISS ON PURPOSE THAT BEAR A STRIKING RESEMBLANCE TO DETAILS TO/ AT ACTUALLY OCCURRING AND/OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE FALSE ALLEGATIONS AND “COACHING” CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE, ALLEGED BY CHILD WHO IS NOW EIGHT YEARS OLD AND DENIED ALL CONTACT WITH LOVING MOTHER FOR THREE YEARS, THOUGH described as “Joni Saloom” did what all non-offending professionals demanded s/he do and believed he/r only child, private property sometimes described for profit by “state” absent (un)timely, sufficient notice, AS DID ALL OTHER PROFESSIONALS AS CONFESSED AND IN “OUTCOMES” BASE, . . . OF THEN (2012) FIVE YEAR OLD LITTLE BOY (MAY 2012) BY  CHERYL HARVICK, LESLY DAMIAN-MURRAY, KAREN COBLENTZ, OTHERS ON THEIR “TEAM” IN BRAZORIA COUNTY CPS FOR CHILD’S “FATHER,” MATTHEW JAMES WORRELL AND FAMILY IN HARRIS COUNTY, TOMBALL, TEXAS AND “PLAY THERAPIST,” KIMBERLY A. ABERNETHY (LICENSED BY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES FOR “‘STATE’ OF TEXAS”/”DFPS,” CPS DIVISION), PEARLAND POLICE OFFICER PAUL ELTON, AND HARRIS COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE/OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT/COUNTY COMMISSIONER’S COURT’S SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS APPOINTMENT AND (FORMER) SGT. WILLIAM LILLY, IN CONTRAVENTION OF US CONSTITUTIONAL, NATURAL LAW, AND INALIENABLE AND UNALIENABLE, GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS, FREEDOMS, AND LIBERTIES OF MOTHER  AND CHILD, described as “Joni Saloom,” WHOSE SON HAS BEEN KIDNAPPED AND TRAFFICKED PURSUANT TO, AMONG OTHER CRIMES PERPETRATED PURSUANT TO “COLOR OF AUTHORITY OF LAW” INDIVIDUAL CO-COMPLICITS FALSELY ALLEGE “‘STATE’ OF TEXAS,”  ” GETTING HIT OVER THE HEAD” (peppered with the same old “domestic violence” at falsely alleged to have allegedly said to “tell ‘Daddy’ . . . “chop off head” “coached,” but actually, by complicits, being individuals, and each of them:  cps, police officer, father, and play therapist individuals, and other suborned, “commissioned” individuals, specialists, “experts,” guardian ad litem, amicus attorneys, a multitude of special interest service providers for the various “states,” BAR members, essentially, against sometimes described as “Julian’s Real Mummy,” and  also  in the case of Lori Handrahan, and also for he/r little daughter, he/r only “child,” Lori’s private property not yet, but to be restoreth.

 May Lori’s, he/r daughter’s, “Julian’s Real Mummy’s,” Julian . . . ” of Genealogy Saloom’s, waking nightmares END.  MAY the nightmares End, for all of s real mommies FORCED TO ENDURE THE ABUSE OF ROGUE TERRORISTS PERMITTED TO OPERATE BY COMPLICIT STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AGENTS, AND NOW, POLICE WILL BE CALLED “VENDORS” WITH CPS.  IN CASE THEY HAVEN’T REALIZED IT YET, THE “MENTAL HEALTH” TRICK IS A TRICK OLDER THAN TIME.  NOT BUYING IT!  IT IS CLEAR WHO THE DANGEROUS PSYCHOTICS REALLY ARE IN THESE RELATIONSHIPS AND AFFAIRS.  BUT THEN, WE ALWAYS KNEW THAT AS A SOCIETY, AND WE STILL DO, DIDN’T WE?

We DO Not, and we shalt not forget  crimes against our children, crimes against real mommies, real beings with real feelings, hearts, memories, and consciousness, natural (wo)man, individual, the vessel on whose waters berthed/birthed little natural man, being living, corporeal body imbued with the live holy Spirit of our divine Creator ALMIGHTY GOD, the “alpha and the omega” “the first and the last,” the “I AM.”

Yet, we are forced still here to endure it, and also in spite of the usual “suspected classes” and hacks(ers) contracted by . . . the usual “suspected classes” and defendants, and each of them, who, being subjected to Higher law and authority will always, naturally, loathe the undeniable pure and real truth that is the faith and the strength, the humble confidence that WINS the marathon.

Of the thousands of mothers who grieve for our children, “Julian’s Real Mummy,” described sometimes as “Joni Saloom” also prays that private property/”children and full and fair compensation available, but not “subjected” to semantic art) be restored also to:

sometimes described as,  ” Linda Marie Sacks (Ormond Beach, Florida;  Volusia County);  Sandra Grazzini-Rucki(Dakota County, Minnesota), Leah  Dannewitz (Carver County, Minnesota), Kimberly Sperling (Dakota County, Minnesota), Caroline Rice (Minnesota), “Emily Court” (Minnesota), Sharon and Bill Burns, the real parents of little Donnelly Keaton Burns who was wrongfully adopted without any cause, but for nothing more than the retaliation, the burning jealousy and pride of vindictive ex-wife  whose mother was a veteran, though retired social worker for corrupt Riverside County DPS for thirty years (Ontario, California; Riverside County; see active civil class complaint in the case of A.A. v. County of Riverside , 5:14-cv-2556, US Central District of California, Riverside division, filed 12/12/”2014″), Amy Charron (Houston, Texas; Harris County), Jennie Morton (Conroe, Athens, Dallas, Texas; Montgomery, Ellis, Dallas Counties, Texas–moves all forced after, but not before bizarre crimes by law enforcement and other ring members made the moves matter of survival for Jennie), apparently had a book published in 2013, Standing Strong, Trisha Schafer (Houston, Texas ; Harris County), reportedly the target of customary Texas style police and law enforcement judicial and worse interference, but way more than the usual, and interestingly lived right down the street from mine and my son’s former home, and also kidnapper’s current husband of his wife’s former husband, father of he/r three still get to live with their real mommy in the same home  with my real, natural son cps and guardian ad litem/court-appointed child’s attorney sinecure top campaign contributor every year as reported in the Texas Tribune and see Public Integrity Unit records,  Donna Everson conspired “stepparent adoption” so solicitously advertised and trending on all family law attorney sites, but supervised (un)”SAFE VICTIM’S ASSISTANCE CENTRE, INC.”/ (free stalking for fathers) unconstitutional rook jobs are not without guilt, lies, and, generally, criminal enterprise racketeering structure (Houston, Texas; Harris County),  Miriam Blank, earned a medical degree which Texas can never truly, or wrongfully and in customary retaliation so familiar to author of this post, take away from he/r like he/r five daughters, God-given gifts (Houston, Texas; Harris County and also Utah “suspected class” facility, on knowledge and belief), Robin Karr (Rockwall, Texas; Tyler, Texas; Dallas and Smith Counties, and also Kentucky State Police), more than sixteen years of “no contact with no reason), Andrea Lebow. another school teacher lost four year old little girl to registered sex offender father in Texas (Amarillo, Texas; Potter County), Michelle Murphy (Newnan, Georgia; Coweta County); Susan Skipp (a usual ideological “suspected class” “state”), Melissa Harris (a usual ideological “suspected class,” politically obsessed, or, perhaps, to give the benefit of the doubt, misguided (?) and i can’t figure out because so good at rehearsing neutral neutering for homogeneous “ambiguity” play, but Stands in truth and righteously battles (Ephesians 6:11, The Holy Bible, all verziones reales) intolerable acts like the Dickens (New Jersey), Brenda Battle Jordan, who i believe ran or said s/he was running for mayor at the time, and read about he/r help (now deceased) agent Gunderson’s and his partner’s research unveiled “The Damon 10,000 Screw,”The Fix is In” game in family court fraud (Detroit, Michigan), Dr. Cherie Safapou, another doctoral degreed mother to little son who begs to come home to his real mommy who the court, in spite of Dr. Safapou’s degree . . .in psychology, mislabeled it by proxy for wrongful, dishonest services profit, but not he/rs and certainly not little “I AM’s” (Marin County, California), mother, but with media coverage, Dr. Ruby Dillon, a dentist and real, natural mommy (Texas; California), Kathy Lee Scholpp (Massachusetts “State” Police; Rhode Island); Susan Farris, an investigative news writer(California), Connie Bedwell (Auburn, California; Placer County), Karen Anderson (Davis, California; Yolo County), as told directly to me by Deborah Connor (Fort Worth/Dallas, Texas; Tarrant County), another real mommy who, pursuant to the same scheme in the late 1990’s, had he/r three week only baby girl who she was still feeding in the natural way and her other child ripped away, career as flight attendant also sabotaged by children’s father, bankrupted, rendered homeless but climbed he/r way back where a district attorney somewhere eventually helped he/r get her children back, but not the same (Fort Worth/Dallas, Texas, Tarrant County; Salt Lake City, Utah; Billings, Montana, father lived in Honolulu, Hawaii), Rebecca McLaughlin, a Ph.D. earning mother(Rhode Island), Stacy Lynne, energy sector (Fort Collins, Colorado; Jefferson County), young mother who had the misfortune to get locked out of he/r home only to call the police for help who then called cps to kidnap called “remove” infant, Johneisha Kemper who did receive settlement by Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors for child “protection” via attorney Shawn McMillan (Los Angeles County, California) who also won jury award of $4.9 million dollars tolled to almost $10 million with lone star lodestar, taxes, and court costs due to stubborn cps refused to settle the case regarding real mommy, Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick (Seal Beach California; County of San Diego), the same story as HERE, recently, the interestingly popular mother, Dr. Ruby Dillon, real mommy, natural mother (Tustin, California, Orange County),   Pamela Gaston (Portland, Oregon; Michigan), Angela/”Mad Angel” (Washington State), Theola Nealy (Milwaukee, Wisconsin), real,  being the natural mommy, who was raped, or, otherwise not “mentally disabled,” and also by he/r social worker, he, the same kidnapping cps father, . . . Nealy’s, mother’s, cps social worker, the judgment free father against whom the actual $1,000,000 judgment  plus rendered lies (Milwaukee, Wisconsin), Tammy Rief (California judge, though Tammy is from Georgia, but in Alabama), and we grieve for the loss of real mommies,’ Sandy Fonzo‘s (deceased) son, “victim” of former Judge Mark Ciavarella’s and Michael Conahan’s, and also others,’ scandalous, landmark case-making “Kids-for-Cash” court (Luzerne, Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania), and also Karen Scott,  mother of Nathan Grieco, suicided by  “threat therapy, “jurisprudence,” at age sixteen (North Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh; Westmoreland County; see also federal case decided in favor of parent’s rights against over zealous social services workers, Croft v. Westmoreland County Children and Youth Services, 103 F. 3d 1123 (3rd Cir., 1997), and also for the loss of real mommy, recent, 2015 suicide by social services and social workers stole Lacey Drier, mother of three children and step-child (Parma, Michigan), and i also grieve for real mommy who was forced to “suffer” the loss, the tragic social-worker inspired accidental death of little Logan Marr (Kennebac County, Maine).”

One who takes the time to read and have right to any opinion shall appropriately observe that the majority of all “similarly ‘deprived'” mothers have good educations and many also had good careers until lives destroyed and some even made homeless the direct result of such schemes and juvenile “games.

 Most Important Thank You and Hats Off to any and all Supporters (absent art, extortion, deception)of Real Mommys.  Your work is very important.  Thank you to author of the following article,  keith harmon snow, to Brett Redmayne Titley, who has followed-up on the Ruby Dillon case.  For your invaluable, thorough, and amazingly cogent and well-reasoned, thoughtful research, thank you also to the following individuals who have courageously acted and who Stand committed to doing their jobs the right way, the only way.  to the incredible and thorough research and sometimes costly experiences,  and writings of, among others forced to endure experiences that apparently produce desirable character, strength, and fortitude: Liz Richards of the Liz Library, Robin Sacks guest speaker, a lawyer, on Fox News affiliate in California, Gina Silva, investigative reporter of the same Fox affiliate in California, Kathleen Russell of Center for Judicial Excellence, Garland Waller, documentary filmmaker in Boston, Dr. Joyanna Silberg of the Leadership Council, Barry Goldstein, researcher, author, speaker, expert in family law matters who specializes in this “high conflict” niche, Dr. Judith Reisman, who has passionately shed light where dare not most all others within described sometimes as “Julian’s Real Mommy’s” present knowledge, and thank you also to the lone ranger gentlemen out there in Southern California and their new  colleague, superstar lawyers for families and children and their rights, and equally other non “suspect classes,” Shawn McMillan, Dean Browning-Webb a.k.a. “R.I.C.O. man,” Colbern Stuart, III (officially non-practicing, but nevertheless, like a lion), and right there with “Cole” at California Coalition for Families and Children (“CCFC”), a public benefit corporation, and Michelle’s baby in Minnesota, Family Innocence Project.  “What a long, strange trip it has been,” and we’re still on the ride, though, a few of us sadly far away from the tide, for, as former Georgia Senator Nancy Schaefer once spoke, . . .”some things are worth losing for.”  This real mommy adds, for all the right reasons.  For those who still have yet to be sufficiently humbled–educated “lowly wise”–or maybe for those were just not meant to get it, or yet . . . . right with ALMIGHTY GOD  and/or one another putting first orphans, widows, children, and those who cannot provide for themselves, the sick, the hungry, and the meek, the pure as a child at heart, this right way is the REAL definition to practice daily, “in good faith,” “for good cause shown,” “in furtherance of justice,” your u.S constitutional oath as officer of the honorable Federal US district,  “state,” county, civil, probate, and last, but first real “priority” on the calendar, family/dependency/juvenile, and especially ” (‘East Texas’) CPS cluster” courts.

Conscious Being Alliance

THREATS ON FACEBOOK TO RAPE WOMEN DEFENDING ABUSED MOTHERS


Posted on June 28, 2012 8:01 AM
Written by: keith harmon snow
Photography Credits: keith harmon snow
Article URL: http://www.consciousbeingalliance.com/2012/06/threats-on-facebook-to-rape-women-supporting-protective-mothers/


THREATS ON FACEBOOK TO RAPE WOMEN DEFENDING ABUSED MOTHERS
Social Media Increasingly Abets Harassment and Censors Truth

28 June 2012

keith harmon snow

After years of harassment and judicial abuse in the state of Maine, protective mother Lori Handrahan and her supporters face threats of rape and other verbal sexual abuse on social networking media.  Welcome to the new world disorder of social networking, where ethics are meaningless and anyone can get away with practically anything – unless it would seriously help make the world a better place, and then it can be flagged, reported or deleted (by invisible and unaccountable administrators) if it threatens someone’s violent or hateful interests or ‘offends’ the abusers.

Like other social networking media, Facebook appears to be unable to discriminate between abusive men and abusive men’s ‘rights’ organizations and those (mostly women) who are under attack by them. Instead of punishing the abusers and traffickers of children, the system appears more and more to sanction them and support trafficking of children, domestic violence and violence against women.  Want to file a serious compliant with Facebook? Good luck!

SIS Handrahan.jpg

Dr. Lori Handrahan

On May 22, 2012 the abusive and litigious Maine attorney Michael Waxman launched a Facebook post that by June 19th had evolved into a discussion where Jeff Pyle, a Colorado man who appears to love Michael Waxman, posted threats promising to rape and sodomize the several women engaged in a hostile exchange with Waxman for the defense of Lori Handrahan.

While Sunny Kelley in Connecticut and most other protective parents’ stories of judicial abuse and destruction remain disbelieved, unheard and unknown, Lori Handrahan’s efforts to Save Mila have resulted in a very high-profile case garnering national attention — thanks to the Internet and the outrage of thousands of people across the country.  Both mothers Lori Handrahan and Sunny Kelley have not seen their children for months.

Hell for Lori Handrahan came in the form of her daughter Mila being raped by her husband, a foreigner who has now apparently gained citizenship under questionable circumstances.  Like most mothers entrapped and abused by the family court system, Lori Handrahan never technically lost custody of her daughter Mila.  “In June 2009 my daughter Mila came home with a shredded vagina and Igor [husband] was substantiated with raping her,” says Lori Handrahan.  “The courts did nothing.  Mila was 2 years old at the time.”

“The state of Maine has trafficked my child Mila,” Lori Handrahan told me, in January 2012, right before the court forced a gag order upon her and shut down her web site.

Dr. Lori Handrahan is a professor at the School of International Service at American University in Washington D.C.  Dr. Handrahan’s credentials are impeccable, with over 20 years of work in international development and human rights all over the world.  She was a guest on CNN and her op-eds about human rights and sex trafficking were often published in the New York Times. “Now that my child’s life is on the line I can’t get any news coverage at all.  Every single media outlet I’ve gotten interested has killed the story at the last minute.”

Lori and Mila’s case also involves corruption within the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), including the illegal naturalization of Ukrainian and Russian nationals who have stolen Mila away from her loving mother.

While available to discuss her case in early January, Lori Handrahan was later served with a gag order, intimidated into silence out of fear for her daughter’s life, and possibly her own.  Sometime in late January or early February of this year, the web site created to help them — “Saving Mila” — went dead.

http://www.slideshare.net/ChildabuseMaine/spurwink-report-of-milas-sex-abuse-report-3

http://www.slideshare.net/ChildabuseMaine/milas-picture-of-the-rock-poppa-and-michael-sniff0001?related=1

http://www.slideshare.net/ChildabuseMaine/transcript-to-moskowitz-jan-2011-hearing-1-11760752?related=4

http://www.slideshare.net/ChildabuseMaine/transcript-to-judge-moskowitz-jan-2011-hearing-2-11760751?related=5

http://www.slideshare.net/ChildabuseMaine/trevor-letter-about-waxman0001?related=2

http://www.slideshare.net/ChildabuseMaine/transcript-to-disqual-waxman-part-3-11760749?related=3

CHILD TRAFFICKING IN MAINE

Maine attorney Michael Waxman quite literally gets away with anything he likes in Maine. In the course of her nightmare to recover her child Mila from the alleged abusive father, Igor Malenko, protective mother Lori Handrahan confronted all levels of the system in Maine and was repeatedly stifled by Maine officials.

“I believe that both Michael Waxman and Igor Malenko are both now and have been committing civil contempt of court since May of 2011,” expert investigator Stephen Pickering wrote to Cumberland County District Attorney Stephanie Anderson on February 1, 2012, after Waxman turned the court into a circus of inappropriate verbal and physical aggression on January 31.  While there was no order restricting Handrahan’s visitation with Mila, Waxman and Malenko had blocked all visitation for some time.

According to investigator Stephen Pickering, Waxman stood up and pointed his finger at the judge and raised his voice to the point that “some would describe this as yelling at the judge. Pickering further concluded that both Waxman and Malenko “committed criminal contempt of court on January 31, 2012, by their willful disregard of the judge’s ordering his courtroom as the judge was affirming his order.”

On February 1, 2012, Waxman sent an email to Judy Potter, Lori Handrahan’s attorney, stating: “And the more I think of it, the less I am convinced that this court has any power over ME in any fashion.”

Judge Jeffrey Moskoitz also behaved inappropriately on January 31, 2012, but Moskowitz has a long history of alleged collusion and corruption with attorney Michael Waxman. At the January 31 kangaroo court, Waxman threatened a lawsuit against District Attorney Stephanie Anderson and he filed the lawsuit in early February.  Five witnesses who were present provided affidavits testifying to what occurred in Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz’s court on January 31, 2012.

“The hearing began with Michael Waxman leading the court into confusion over labeling the massive amounts of documents he introduced, of such proportions that it was clear no one had the time to ever read them,” wrote witness Carrie Rockwell.  “He then harangued his client, Igor Malenko, for over an hour, thrusting at him pictures of Igor’s daughters’ anus and vagina, and reading allowed an email Waxman himself wrote to a woman whom he met on Facebook revealing his thought’s about what could be done to Mila’s vagina with a Coke bottle.  All this was done to prove what ten people in the room knew and could prove with certainty was a lie.”

One witness suggested that attorney Michael Waxman appeared to commit perjury, suborning perjury, falsifying evidence, and a conspiracy to commit fraud upon the court.

Now Waxman has created a new Internet site to harass Lori Handrahan and her supporters.  The site, called S.T.E.A.M. — Stopping the Explopitation, Abuse and Murder of our Children — is aligned with an assortment or other organizations, causes and petitions, but is inherently a front for Waxman’s destructive “father’s rights” agenda and self-protection.

STEAM WAXMAN HANDRAHAN .jpg

The S.T.E.A.M. web site is very sloppy.  As early as December 20111, Waxman revealed in casual web posts that a new web site was under design to replace the Facebook page called FOR THE LOVE OF MILA — another page created as a front to present Waxman’s disinformation.  The new S.T.E.A.M. web site was apparently launched in May 2012.

While Lori Handrahan — white, professional and highly accomplished mother — is offered as the primary column for “Featured Abusers for June 2012” (see below) the other abusers of the month are two African-American couples who allegedly killed their children.  Thus the architects of the site have provided two additional examples of violence against children that both fit the societal stereotype of black people as criminals. Contrary to media representations and Hollywood stereotypes about people of color, there are also high rates of domestic violence, rape and murder in white communities.  However, by placing Lori Handrahan next to these two black couples the hidden message is that Lori Handrahan is a violent criminal.

The two African-American alleged murder couples appear with Lori Handrahan on the HOME page.  This is just window dressing.  The web pages were hastily designed to provide a false sense of depth behind the front designed primarily to harass Lori Handrahan, and there are errors and inconsistencies in the web design beyond the HOME page.

For example, the menu at the top of the HOME page and most other pages has four clickable links: HELP – CONTACT US – CASES – HOME.  Deeper inside the web site are numerous “cases” of child abuse that are accessed by clicking on the CASES link in the HOME page menu.  However, as of 29 June 2012 the links for some cases don’t work at all (for example: “CASES PAGE 3”).  More importantly, several of the CASES links lead to pages where the menu at the top of the new page has only three clickable links: HANDRAHAN – HELP – CONTACT US.  This shows the clear intent of the web site.

Naturally, the HANDRAHAN link takes you straight to an extensive posting of disinformation exclusively about Lori Handrahan and this is the heart of the web site. The HANDRAHAN page offers an extensive post — unlike all other sections of the site — packed detail after detail of lies and half-truths fabricated by attorney Michael Waxman and his supporters.

Several of Lori Handrahan’s women supporters are also mentioned on the HANDRAHAN page, and these are some of the same women threatened with rape on the May 2012 Facebook thread.

ScreeHANDRAHAN PAGE STEAM -06-29 at 10.22.54 PM.jpg

“For the second straight month,” S.T.E.A.M.’s HANDRAHAN slam begins, “Lori Handrahan has been unanimously selected as the Child Abuser of the Month. Why?”

The answer is that the web site was created solely as a platform to harass Lori Handrahan and her supporters, to further confuse the story and cover up the hard truth that Lori’s daughter Mila has allegedly been trafficked with the support of the state of Maine, the Department of Homeland Security and attorney Michael Waxman.

As reported on the Saving Mila Facebook page: Mila is being sexually abused, the abusive father received free lawyer services over several years and the girl is barred from leaving this dangerous situation. Waxman has said many times that his estimated cost for legal services for Mila’s father amounts to around $250,000. To cover up his trafficking of Mila, Waxman has escalated the slander against Lori and his threats to have her committed and jailed.

FACEBOOK RAPE THREATS

“How about this cause and other bitches, take care of your own business and shut the FUCK up!” Jeff Pyle posted on the Waxman post on June 19.  A 1982 graduate of Weston High School (MA) who lives in Colorado, Jeff Pyle then sexually berated the women engaged in the discussion (see below) and threatened to “come back there” to find, rape and sodomize them. The post has now been deleted.

PYLE RAPE Handrahan Screen Shot small.jpg

Alerted on June 20 by one of the protective mothers who has been increasingly harassed by Michael Waxman, I responded:
Ladies, it’s not recommended to spend your time communicating with these ugly men.  As you can see, they are mean and nasty and try to compensate for their weakness by threatening women with sexual and other physical violence. Mr. Pyle – look me up, I can offer several solutions to your problems.”

On June 28, I received a notice from Facebook administration notifying me that I am under investigation for my post (now also removed).  There was no way to respond to the pop-up warning message that appeared when I first logged in to Facebook, and disappeared after, and it is impossible to figure out how to communicate with Facebook to challenge the flagging of my post and inform Facebook about their need to investigate Michael Waxman and the Handrahan case.

Online sexism is rampant, but the problem is systemic and institutionalized sexism and support for domestic violence that arises due to online media’s attempts to be socially friendly and compatible to as many users as possible.  While censoring some people and interests, these social media often end up punishing the victims and supporting the abusers.

Major social networking media — Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google+ and others — have, one way or another, helped to censor Lori and Mila’s story.  The organization Change.org — reputed to be a socially conscious networking entity — still carries a petition created by Michael Waxman the father’s lawyer in Maine, intended to further censor and punish Lori Handrahan.

Facebook makes it impossible to issue a detailed compliant about the hate speech and physical violence threatened by Michael Waxman’s supporter Jeff Pyle.  While the most threatening post by Pyle was removed from the long back-and-forth, the post that I made was also flagged and removed.  Appropriate action by Facebook would include exploring Michael Waxman’s threatening history and behavior toward Lori Handrahan.

It is the same with Change.org.  It seems they will allow a petition by anyone, for anything, no matter that these petition might be created by violent individuals and have violent motives, including harassment.

Media personality Jay Smooth, the host of New York’s longest running hip-hop radio show, WBAI’s Underground Railroad, recently created a video criticizing online sexism and online threats against women.  Smooth was motivated by the recent surge of bullying, abuse and harassment attacks against Anita Sarkeesian whose Feminist Frequency project launched a Kickstarter campaign that came under attack.

“Many abusive men are active online,” comments a chapter organizer for the National Organization for Women (NOW), “and they often jump at the chance to try to intimidate women (especially protective mothers or their supporters) by making vicious and crazy threats, such saying they plan to rape the women, kill them, or otherwise cause them some kind of bodily harm.”

“It’s shocking and very frightening to realize just how many sexist men there are out there — bloggers and vloggers like Anita Sarkeesian often receive hundreds of these types of terrorist threats, almost daily.”

ENDNOTE:

Looking at one of the “human rights” petitions on Change.org that is listed by STEAM as an example of appropriate child abuse groups or movements — We demand changes to child abuse laws and sentencing, we find that the charges called for are suspicious at best and destructive to women at worst.  Most of the petition’s ten points otherwise appear to be reasonable and important suggestions for legislative changes or legislative protocols.  However, note items 6), 9) and 10) on this petition:

6) If a parent has left an abusive partner courts have no right sending a child for anything more then a supervised visit.

Really? What is this petition point actually saying? Courts have no right sending a child back to a protective mother (who has left her abusive partner) for more than a supervised visit? Sounds like the judicial abuse and alleged sexual abuse cases of both Sunny Kelley in Connecticut and Lori Handrahan from Maine, whose children at present are living out a life sentence.

Let’s look at this Change.org “human rights” petition point number 9)

9) In the event a child is claimed to be kidnapped or missing remove the other children in the home immediately place them in foster care.

Really? Does this make sense? Or is it an attempt to criminalize parents — probably the mother will suffer more — for reporting that their child has been kidnapped? Also, there is the question of how removing the other children from the home relates to the typically destructive and often highly profit-driven state foster care systems.  Does this give too much power to the state, an especially scary prospect given the state ‘social services’ and federally funded (Department of Health and Human Services) black holes serving the destructive father’s rights groups in states all over the USA?

The Change.org petition point number 10) is even clearer:

10) If the mother or father are living not wed to someone who is not the childs father or mother and has a known history of violence and the child is harmed or killed the mother should face equal charges for putting her child in danger.

Really? According to everything we have learned about domestic violence and child abuse, it is most often the case that women and children are trapped in abusive relationships and abusive households and fear for their personal safety and their children’s safety on a day-to-day and sometimes minute to minute basis. Women trapped in domestic violence situations by violent fathers are living in constant terror and escape is often considered impossible.  Such facts need to be taken into account and explored during investigations of domestic violence and child abuse/death.

But note that it is “the mother” singled out in this petition point who “should face equal charges” for living not wed to someone who has a known history of violence. This makes no sense, unless it is situated within the aggressive and violent framework of the destructive so-called “father’s rights” movement.

This “human rights” petition is nothing but a movement to give lawyer’s and judges more power to abuse women, especially protective mothers, and their children, by placing them in foster care. (The petition is also written in terrible English.)

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

     Nothing contained in this post or on this blog, Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and our Children Who Want to Come Home, and and especially for my little Julian, could be (mis)construed as “legal advice” of any kind as author of this post is expressly NOT a lawyer, attorney, or legal practitioner.

  • CENSORSHIP and censorship shall be challenged strongly as censorship, being in breach of, among so many other unlawful acts and omissions, is a violation of sometimes described as “Julian’s Real Mummy’s” First Amendment u.S Constitutional right to the free exercise of speech, and also to peaceably assemble herein and also to freely exercise whatever religion, if any, that said natural, American u.S “citizen,” “citizen” meaning fo the purposes of this post. conditionally as i, being natural (wo)man, individual, living and corporeal body,  exclusively reserve the right to revoke or rescind the offer at any and all times, inherently “sovereign” and “elect” in nature, spirit, and essence because imbued with the spirit of our divine Creator ALMIGHTY GOD. ;
  • (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 Federa, u.S. Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal,u.S Constitution and its  Bill of Rights, pursuant to the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.;
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.;
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, and Author will be happy to follow the law and respect your wishes.

LAWLESS MODERN AMERICA and MY HORROR DEALING WITH CORRUPTED TEXAS


amyandmarkelcharron

Please, first thing to ask yourself how is it legal or even Constitutional FOR T…EXAS and our corrupted Government to take a innocent mothers child (at 41 yrs old) with no criminal background at all with Native American Rights. My only child was viciously taken so scared at 2 yr old with no investigation right away for only making a evidence based criminal report on my wealthy powerful step dad who… was appointed by Governor Rick Perry! Despite my case was ruled out and dropped it was illegally reopened due to CPS worker Debra Reyna saying the document was not official yet it was and the judge allowed this! The CPS investigator who signed it is DEBRA MAYO who never came to court once to clear up their lies! She also returned no phone calls in over 2 yrs! The 2 CPS workers that illegally set me up to lose…

View original post 7,461 more words

GIVING PRAISE AND THANKS TO GOD FOR ANSWERING ONE REAL DADDY’S PRAYERS IN THE WOODLANDS, TEXAS!


GIVING PRAISE AND THANKS TO GOD FOR ANSWERING ONE REAL DADDY’S PRAYERS IN THE WOODLANDS, TEXAS!

jOHN'S BOY

WOW! LOOK AT THE SMILE ON THIS BEAUTIFUL LITTLE GIRL. THIS PICTURE TELLS THE STORY OF A HAPPY ENDING FOR MR. JOHN AND SHEMITRA HILL AND HIS TWO ADORABLE CHILDREN IN THE WOODLANDS, TEXAS AFTER ONE STRANGE DETOUR THROUGH DELIVERANCE IN HOUSTON, TEXAS (HARRIS COUNTY) FAMILY COURT IN THE 246TH WITH “THERAPIST” FELECIA POWELL-WILLIAMS AND A PLAYING/PAYING CREW, ON KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.

THIS FAMILY IS CERTAINLY BLESSED.  PRAISE THE LORD!  HALLELUJAH!  GOD IS GOOD!

https://www.change.org/p/united-states-department-of-justice-change-the-laws-regarding-family-law-and-for-a-judge-lawyers-cps-and-police-officers-that-assist-with-covering-up-sexual-abuse-and-injury-to-a-child-in-the-state-of-texas

John Hill’s faith the the Lord and his willingness and actions that put His Word into his daily work (and even as a trusted worker for the United States Postal Service) have restored me not less than once over the last couple of interminable years without my son (pursuant to a  kidnapping or “wrongful, unreasonable ‘removal'” perpetrated for profit, prejudice, and retaliation by a band of rogue criminals working under the “color of the authority of law” for “state of Texas” in both Brazoria and Harris Counties, Texas.  John similarly endured, but he never, ever, ever wavered in his faith or his constant witnessing and testifying the Word of the Lord.  He never blamed God, but always insisted on more prayers, harder work, more faith, and fasting with the prayer.  John and his faithful new bride, and I may be misspelling he/r name, so please forgive me, but, Shemitra, testified and Stood by John and supported him in his darkest moments which he never let anyone else feel as dark.   John always wanted to praise and give glory to God and to not detract from that with the petty woes of this “valley of tears” the the Holy Bible in fact DOES promise us as opposed to the “rose garden”  to which so many feel “entitled,” especially in the current times.  I can remember John saying to me in dark hours in my struggle with the same forces working against families, children, and especially unwed mothers and young mothers with young, adoptable children, many of whom have vindictive ex-partners recruited by an all-too-willing profiteering/privateering joint public-private “non-for-profit” “state and local government,” or, “COG” (regional Council of Government), to be glad.  Why did he tell me to be glad?  “Because everything is happening just like it is supposed to and must happen.”  This is proof that His promises are real.  Thank you for your unwavering faith and encouragement, Mr. Hill.  God bless your beautiful family and children.  Your faithfulness and loyalty is of a rare breed indeed that is just not found in many corners of the earth.  I haven’t seen it yet in anyone who has not gone through what we have been refined through.

How did the Lord help John accomplish the Herculean task of enforcing his equal parental rights?  We give thanks that the Lord showed Mr. Hill a way in the form of a loan and an apparently highly effective Harris County, Houston, Texas (and surrounding areas to include North Houston) board-certified family law attorney, Gary Polland.

Now, we rejoice and continue to pray for over one hundred thousand mothers and children and a few fathers who missed the current or the custody-switching scam a la the Texas Office of the Attorner General for the Office of Title IV-D Child Support Enforcement and New Day Services “Responsible Fatherhood” for those with criminal records and “Healthy Marriage Initiative.”   That is certainly not to imply that these institutions are not -preferable or meritorious, but rather than blatant gender discrimination of an invidious animus, and also of the socio-economic and marital “color” are inflicting enormous harm and injury in the glorification and false worship of grants, “trauma-informed, levels based, outcomes” which encourage questionable court appointments and unholy alliances and conflicts of interests among service contractors and providers trusted by public servants who have been “trusted,” irresponsibly, with the highest and most noble of causes–our children.  These fiduciaries have breached their con tract with the parents and children of Texas to the degree they continue to so operate without disclosing fully and fairly and duly compensating the real private property owners gifted by GOD ALMIGHTY.

So happy for you, John!  The children look happier and healthier than anyone could ask for.  And they are even mowing the lawn and performing chores!  All Glory goes to God.  A win for one of us is a win for all of us!  “Today is a day in which the Lord hath made, therefore we shall rejoice and be glad in it (Psalms 117:24, The Holy Bible).”

Further, For a day in Your courts is better than a thousand outside. I would rather stand at the threshold of the house of my God Than dwell in the tents of wickedness. For the LORD God is a sun and shield; The LORD gives grace and glory; No good thing does He withhold from those who walk uprightly.…(Psalms 84:10, The Holy Bible).

Many believe firmly, and this real mommy agrees, that the Word of the Lord alone, and only the Holy Scripture, can and shall save us in the time of Evil.  It is time to do our homework and start memorizing.  This part is literal, in my opinion and based in real life observations.  For there can only be one master of “illusion.”  Cogito ergo sum.  I think, therefore “I AM.”  I believe.

The scourge and details below:

Petitioning Governor Rick Perry and 5 others

Change the laws regarding family law and for a judge, lawyers, CPS, and police officers that assist with covering up sexual abuse and injury to a child in the state of Texas

john hill the woodlands, TX

 

I have been fighting for full custody of my children in the 246th court in Houston, TX with Judge York presiding, due to my ex-wife, Dana Rochelle Edwards, allowing our children who are ages 7 and 6 now to be molested since 2009.

My children were out crying about being sexually abused in their mother and maternal grandmother’s home, majority of the weekends that I was able to pick them up they were always complaining about being sexually and physically abused, which as a father I didn’t know what to do or how to handle this, I took them to the hospital and called CPS, but CPS wouldn’t come out, they would wait until the children were back in the custody of my ex-wife and talk to the children or call my ex-wife and ask her did it happen and she would say that the children are lying and making things up or I was making up it because I didn’t want to pay child support, and CPS would close the case and do nothing. So SANE  (sexual assault nurse exam) cases were performed on the children, but not every time they went to the hospital.

Deadre Jones, my ex-wife’s mother, stated to CPS that I was the only person making these accusations about my children being abused, but it is clearly documented that my ex-wife and her knew about the abuse prior to me even knowing, as well as Jones going to the hospital with ex-wife for complaints of abuse. It is also documented in CPS reports that she was also taking my children to the “suspected person” as well.

Jones was in court and every CPS meeting with my ex-wife playing the innocent grandmother role, knowing all that time what was happening behind closed doors at her house as well as my ex-wife house, and didn’t come forward with the truth. Judge York appointed Bobbie Young as amicus attorney in December 2011 to see if she could help my ex-wife and I resolve our issues and do what was best for the children. Young is also a RN.

 

Young met with me at my home, she spoke to my fiancée, who is currently a RN concerning the sexual abuse, outcries and behavior of my children, Young admitted to her that she knew that the molestation was going on; she had recently visited the home of my ex-wife.

‘My mother, who is a retired school teacher, also spoke with Young concerning the sexual abuse, outcries, and behavior of my children; she admitted again that she was aware of the abuse. Young filed a motion for my ex-wife and I to have a psychological evaluation through Dr. Victoria Sloan, I did not trust Young because as soon as we went to court she was another person and siding with my ex-wife, so we verbally agreed with my prior attorney Bruce Buskirk that I could find my own person to perform the psychological evaluation. And I did, Young brings me back into court  as well as the psychotherapist, Dr, McDaniel, after speaking with him and he told her that nothing was wrong with me psychologically, she told Judge York that he wasn’t qualified to performpsychological evaluation, and it needed it to performed by a licensed psychologist, Judge York approved her request.

In January 2012, Judge York, Young, and Angelina Gooden, my ex-wife’s attorney who is also an amicus for the 246th court, heard medical testimony from Harris County police officer  (Sgt. William Lilly, appointed by Harris County Sheriff, Adrian Garcia, supervisor to Lilly, Ruben Diaz) who read the SANE (sexual assault nurse exam)  nurse report from Memorial Hermann in the Woodlands, Tx, stating that my son told the SANE nurse that “the person at his mother’s home put their penis in his mouth and urinated,” my daughter stated that “the person put their mouth, fingers, toys, and penis into her vagina.”

Judge York stated that he believed that this has been going on, but he didn’t order to remove the children from their mother’s home, he just stated that he wanted to hear more testimony from the medical staff at Memorial Hermann, which Memorial Hermann’s lawyer kept filing quash motions to prevent their staff from coming into court testifying about the statements that my children made concerning sexual abuse happening to them at their mother’s home, which Judge York approved, but he kept contradicting himself saying he wanted every medical personnel that the children made outcries to about  in his court to testify.

My ex-wife continued to violate court orders and Judge York wouldn’t even hold her in contempt, he would just say stop doing that. Young kept bringing me back into court for psychological evaluations which was done by a board certified psychologist that gives insight on the news in Houston, I gave her his information, signed a release form for her to talk to him, but she never contacted him, she kept saying I didn’t get to talk to him prior to Mr. Hill seeing him, which was never in her original order.

I filed a grievance on her because she wouldn’t stop, she is extremely biased, kept telling me she was going to make sure she takes my rights taken away, and kept defending my ex-wife, while saying that the molestation didn’t happen that it was all speculation, I provided Young with the medical documents showing my children describing to medical professionals about the sexual abuse that was happening to them in their mother’s home, Young also had access to CPS reports as well. I even told her that my fiancée and I was threatened by the CPS police that if we file another CPS report then something will happen to us. We filed a complaint with internal affairs against the police officer after contacting the Mayor of Houston, Parker.

In April 2012, I picked my children up and my daughter had burns going up her legs and my son had cigarette burns on his knee, which their mother nor maternal grandmother told me when I picked them on Friday evening, I didn’t find out until Saturday morning when I was putting them on their night clothes because they fell asleep on the way home, which is what they typically do when I do get them and sleep until 11am or 12 pm on Saturday, which my mother or fiancée is watching them while I am at work.

Well, my mom took my children to the hospital just to make sure that the burns on my daughter’s leg was not infected and needed to be treated, my daughter had a old burn on upper thigh which she wouldn’t tell anyone how she got that burn, but the lower leg burn happened because she fell on a barbeque pit top, my son also verbalized to the doctor, that their cousin Reggie (Reginald Moffett), who is a grown man, burned him with cigarettes on his leg and his mom just got mad but left them at his house anyway and went to work.

The doctor asked if there was a history of abuse and my mom and I told her as well as my daughter started showing her vagina, so she sent my daughter via ambulance to Texas Children Hospital  in the Medical Center, I verbalized to the doctor that I didn’t want a SANE case done because the 246th court, Young, and Gooden would try to take my rights away because they said that I was “emotionally abusing my children due to the SANE cases, ” the doctor said that the court can deal with her, and my daughter was going to Texas Children’s Hospital that night.

CPS was called, but they said they couldn’t come out until Sunday, which they never did, they called my ex-wife instead and she said that she wasn’t present but that she fell on a barbeque pit top and didn’t say anything about the older burn on her thigh.

My previous attorney Allecia Pottinger was notified and contacted Young to come to the hospital, Young spoke with the medical staff and I and they also verbalized that I didn’t want the SANE case, but there was suspicion of abuse so a SANE case would be done that night, Young agreed and stayed at the hospital until midnight. Young used the SANE (sexual assault nurse exam) case that she approved of and had my rights taken away, CPS was made managing conservator over my children, Pottinger told me that my children would be placed in a family member’s home until they can figure out what is going on, which I gave them my sister’s information who is also an attorney and her husband is a FBI agent, but that didn’t happen CPS placed the children right back into my ex-wife’s custody immediately after court and Reggie Moffett’s).

I was ordered to do another psychological evaluation as well as “psychiatric evaluation,” which they had no valid explanation for another evaluation, which would have been my 3rd and 4th evaluation in less than 6 months.

Young and Gooden were allowed to use my cancer medical records, which was obtained illegally through my ex-wife, she was never given any permission to obtain my medical records, while I was going through cancer in 2006, I was diagnosed with mild depression, I lost my home, I didn’t have insurance, my ex-wife couldn’t keep a job, and lack of family support, they were able to use that to say that I had an undiagnosed “mental disorder,” which was unbelievable. My ex-wife NEVER did her psychological evaluation that Young ordered for Dr. Sloan and Judge York approved, Gooden and Young verbalized that she had walked out of her evaluation and didn’t complete it.

So, then I was on supervised visitation for taking my children to the hospital for them out crying about being sexually abused, this is ridiculous. ‘

So, during that time I obtained CPS reports, my ex-wife’s story about the abuse kept changing with every CPS case worker, she knew about it, she didn’t know it, the children were lying, and I was molesting my children. My children actually out cried to CPS case workers about the abuse happening in their mother’s home and maternal grandmother’s home, CPS still didn’t do anything. CPS talked to the SANE nurse, she said there is “absolutely no way a child could make up a story as detailed as this.”

Young and Gooden would consistently bring me in and out court to take away rights of seeing my children, once Judge York approved of what they were doing; they walked out of court laughing. I was on supervised visitation through CPS at their office my ex-wife was still taking my daughter to the doctor for concerns of abuse, trying place the blame on me, my daughter was diagnosed with vaginitis while I was on supervised visitation.

In August 2012, my ex-wife, her two (2) cousins ( Margaret Moffett and Niosha Sampson), and her aunt (Sheryl Thomas Gainous )went to CPS making a report that they had walked into the room my son was performing play sex on his cousins (which are their children), now all of these children are less than 10, they asked them what they were doing, then they asked my children who taught them that, my children supposedly said that I taught them that, I would touch their private parts while they were taking a bath, they asked my children how did it feel when I touched them, my children supposedly said at first it felt tingly but then we liked it because we thought it was game, and we would have sex with each other in front of our dad and we would like it, Dana became shocked to hear this and blamed herself for the abuse, saying she could have asked more questions, I mean these are professional people, no one found it bizarre that all these people would come in on the same day while I was on supervised visitation, and make up a crazy story as this, I was questioned through CPS about this outrageous accusation and Young, Gooden, CPS, my ex-wife, and her family walked out of court laughing. Judge York didn’t do anything about this, he did order for us to see the same psychologist for anotherevaluation,” which we did, the psychologist said that I was angry and just needed to work with CPS and the court to get my children on the other hand she said that my ex-wife said she had an 11th grade education but she more than likely had the education of a 7th grader, she had psychological issues and needed to see a doctor to properly diagnose her as well as see a psychiatrist to placed on medication, and she needed repeated psychological evaluation for the next 2 years to see where she is at, Young never brought this into court, matter of fact Young and Gooden wouldn’t even release the information to my prior attorney Hilary Unger for months, discoveries kept being filed, but only portions of the discoveries were being followed.

Dana and my son during a therapy session with Powell-Williams, it is documented what really happened with the “play sex”. Per Powell-Williams, it is documented that my son stated that he was being bullied by his older cousin into playing sex.

Dana never stated the story her cousins and aunt made up about the whole “play sex” situation when she became shocked  while she was in therapy with my son. This was not brought to the attention of  the court, that Dana went in with her cousins and aunt to make those false accusations against me, which CPS was aware because they had Powell-Williams documentation. After showing HCSO and the DA documentation, they stated that they couldn’t charge them with making false CPS reports because CPS should have filed charges against them once they received documentation that Dana’s story had changed about the “play sex” three weeks later.

Dana also openly admits to CPS that she has to sleep in our daughter’s room at night to make sure our son doesn’t come in and bother her at night. Now, what kind of mother portrays her own son of doing this to his sister instead of taking accountability for her own actions, which something should have clicked in someone’s head to see that she is definitely hiding something. The suspects have never been properly investigated because they call Dana prior to coming to her home and she denies the suspects saying that is the name of my altered ego, which is ridiculous. 

(or, in Author of this blog’s  son’s case–what kind of a father alleges the same about himself to a five year old little boy?)-America, we have a problem!  Wake-up Houston!

Judge York ordered Dr. Felecia Powell-Williams, who is a psychotherapist that the children were seeing but not on the approved family plan through CPS that he signed off on to see me with my children so that I can get off of the supervised visitation because CPS wanted off the case after I sent them medical documentation showing my daughter was diagnosed with vaginitis while under their care and my ex-wife was still taking them to doctor for concerns of abuse while I was on supervised visitation, CPS also blocked me from getting the medical records so I had to file a complaint against ABC pediatric clinic with OCR, which is how I was able to obtain part of my children’s medical records and continue to see the bias and unfairness in this entire case.

Powell-Williams wouldn’t follow the court order, came into court because Young and Gooden filed a motion they wanted to increase my child support because my ex-wife doesn’t like to work and wanted to keep me on supervised visitation and give my ex-wife full custody and Young wanted to prevent me from testifying to anything she has said to me.

Because a few weeks earlier she admitted again to Hilary Unger, my previous attorney and myself that she was aware of the molestation going on in the mother’s home, but she couldn’t prove it through the SANE cases and she would get me off of supervised visitation, but she was consistently defending and covering my ex-wife at the same time.

Powell-Williams said that I was “delusional” because I called her and told her that she was basically doing like everyone else in the case covering for my ex-wife and she is just like CPS, and Judge York ordered her to see me with my children and if she wasn’t aware of the order than she needs to contact CPS to get the order so she can do it, then she says under oath she cannot make a decision concerning my psychological state after only seeing me 2 times for less than 30 minutes. Powell-Williams was also provided with all my children and my psychological evaluation, CPS notes, and medical records, so she can be fully aware of everything concerning this case.

Judge Hays, the associate judge in York’s 246th court in Harris County in Houston, ordered me to continue to be on supervised visitation and go to mediation and denied Young’s motion, the bias just continued and they were unable to provide me with a valid explanation for continuing to be on supervised visitation.

Powell-Williams was upset because I wasn’t going to personally pay her. I informed her I did not hire her and that therapy sessions that she is providing for my children is between CPS and herself, and she needs to contact them for payment arrangements.

Mellonie Baldwin, Achor Counseling, was the counselor that CPS ordered for my ex-wife and I to go to for individual and parental counseling. I had been going there for several weeks and Baldwin comes into my session and asks me for my ex-wife’s contact information because according to her my ex-wife had not come to any counseling sessions.

I informed her that she needs to contact CPS to get her contact information. I was told that I was finished with my counseling sessions and my ex-wife has not attended any sessions and they can’t make her come to the sessions.

So, my counselor signed off on my counseling sessionsThree (3)  months later Baldwin calls me the night before court and tells me that I have 6 more sessions, I told her no I do not my counselor signed off and said that I was done, I was already seeing a Christian psychologist for counseling prior to coming to Achor Counseling and I was presently seeing her. Achor Counseling was supposed to call her and make sure that they were not interfering with her therapy sessions with me, which they failed to do.

She became irate on the phone and I told her she needs to talk to my counselor, Mr. Smith and he signed- off on me, and she nor CPS can change the order at the last minute to accomodate whatever it is that they are trying to do, and I was not going to do any more sessions at Achor Counseling and that is  the end of that.

I also informed her that I had recorded my counseling sessions because I did not trust Achor Counseling because they were connected with CPS.

Baldwin hangs up the phone in my face, but calls back later saying that she found the missing sheet of paper, and she will call CPS to clear up this matter immediately.

February 2013, after CPS pulls off the case, I receive all of their files, in there is Achor Counseling records, my ex-wife had been seeing Baldwin the entire time that I was going there, and she e-mailed CPS and told them I was “rude to her and she didn’t want to see me anymore for counseling and that she is going to write on my final evaluation that I need to stop “lying on my ex-wife.”

They had all of the medical records and CPS records, so everything that I was saying about my ex-wife lying and covering- up the molestation of our children was in black and white. I was seeing Mr. Smith so I don’t know why she would even write anything on my final evaluation, which continued to show how people were openly and willing to cover up the molestation of my children.

Hilary set up a mediation meeting, even she said that mediation wouldn’t work, I told her I didn’t want to go to mediation that my ex-wife would continue to violate court orders and nothing would be done to her.

The mediation was basically in favor of my ex-wife on everything, I was going to be”subjected” to another psychological evaluation and continue to be supervised visitation through SAFE which  I would have to pay for, I told her I didn’t want to sign it, I called my fiancée and talk to her about it, Hilary gets on the phone and tells her the same thing she tells me, that even if I go to trial and the jury finds favor in me, Judge York stills has the last say, he is pro-women and he would never give me custody of my children, he would look at the SANE cases and base his decision solely on that, he would increase my child support to $1,800 dollars, so I need to go ahead and sign because he will order it anyway and I should be like every other man in Texas take my standard visitation and go on with my life, so I kept going back and forth not wanting to sign it and she kept saying I have no choice its only for a few weeks, I am still unable to see my children til this day as well as my ex-wife continues to violate the phone order, they cannot find a psychologist or counselor who even wants to touch this case, because after I send them paperwork proving what I am saying is true and the bias and the injustice that I have been going through in this court, they don’t want to touch it.

My sister who is an attorney contacted Hilary asking her why did she make me sign that mediation order, Hilary tried to say that I wanted to, but my sister said I talked to him right before he went into your office for the mediation meeting, he talked my mom, and his fiancée as well, he verbalized that this was waste of time and he didn’t want to sign it and needed to go back to work, she started saying I am the worst client she ever had because I don’t know how to control my emotions, which this court is unfair, biased, and continues to do everything that is wrong during this case, so I have every right to be upset this court is playing with my children’s lives as well as mine.

Houston attorney Hilary Unger was aware that court-appointed amicus attorney Bobbie Young was retaliating; she even called the ethics board with the State Bar of Texas on her and said that if she sides with my ex-wife during the trial then she would file on her, but we never went to trial because of this mediation.

And, of course. Judge York denies the appeal, said that this case makes him nauseous, he says he doesn’t make decisions its on the amicus, laughs and looks at me and say, “Mr. Hill sorry I couldn’t help you.”

But my children reside in a home where there was attempted murder on my ex-wife, by her family member, who shot into their home while she had the children.

CPS supervisors came to court and said that they are aware of the court violations but unaware that my ex-wife was taking my children to the doctor while in their custody, but I have e-mails showing that they knew about it, they even sent the e-mails to Hilary, but they were allowed to continue to lie in court.

There are also police reports showing that  my ex-wife tried to pull the children out of the car while I was driving off and chased me on the interstate and the police would be called out every time I would go to pick them up, but none of this matters to the 246th, Judge York believes children should be with their mother, no matter what.

I have hired 4 attorneys and spent almost $80,000 dollars (that was in 2013), lost memories of my children growing- up, and lost my home, I am worse off now than when I started this fight. After my attorneys talk with Young and Gooden, they pull off the case every time, they say this case is crazy.

Judge York ordered phone conversations while I was on supervised visitation on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 7:30 pm, she violated the order over 40 times, Judge Jim York never did anything, my ex-wife, Dana,  continues to violate the court orders, I am still unable to talk to talk to my children on several Thursdays and haven’t seen them since July 2013.

I no longer can see my children through SAFE because they don’t want to be involved after sent them information pertaining to this case, ask them for documentation for every time my ex-wife violated the SAFE, and a receipt of payments to SAFE

SAFE manager got upset and said that I didn’t pay for the person supervising the visits one time out of the several times I did feed her. Judge York will never make CPS, Dana or Young and Gooden accountable for lying in court, because they have went beyond measures to keep the molestation of my children and my ex-wife knowing about it out of court.

Attorney Hilary Unger then pulled out of my case as soon as we get out of court and after my appeal was denied, and tells me find another attorney to appeal Judge York’s decision as well as the mediation, I contacted over 20 attorneys and all of them say wait until Judge York is off the bench in November 2013, but what about my children’s safety, does that not matter, what about the fact she continues to violate orders and her lawyers (Gooden and Young) cover her. \

They also told me that I didn’t have a chance because I was going up against two amicus attorneys (court-appointed) in Judge York’s court (246th, Harris County, TX) and he will rule for whatever they want every time, which is not right and highly biased.

My ex-wife was found guilty of assaulting me and took a plea deal, which shows she is a pathological liar and is unable to control her actions. She lied under oath several times about things pertaining to this case and it can be proven.

I had to see a Christian psychologist for several months to help me deal with anger issues concerning this case, she was NEVER pulled into court to combat all the people that Gooden and Young brought in.

She helped me to deal with this issue as God would have me to and that’s by continuing to pray and stand on His word, even though it is hard at times. I know that the God I serve is a God of justice and evil shall never prevail against good.

Nobody besides myself and the police officer who read the SANE nurse’s report was ever able to testify concerning the children’s outcries and witnessed inappropriate behavior and conversation with other children.

Attorney Hilary Unger, one of my attorneys, brought up the red bumps near my daughter’s vagina that she showed my mother and the case worker during a supervised visitation, the case worker comes in court and says that it looks like mosquito bites, it was January 2013, the weather was cold, so in order for my daughter to have mosquito bites near her vagina she would have to be in a bathing suit, standing near water, and her mother is watching her getting attacked by mosquitoes and why doesn’t my son have it as well, but that was allowed to go on in the 246th court.

 

I went to the DA for Harris County in order for them to pick-up of assault case against my ex-wife instead of keeping it in the JP courts, which video-taped at my children’s school and the principal was an eye witness.

I wanted Harris County DA to pick up the case because Elijah Gooden was my ex-wife’s attorney and used what was happening in family court against me and the JP DA was going to give her a slap on the wrist.

She previously pleaded not guilty to the assault and said that I hit her, and once the video was seen it showed that she assaulted me.

Prior JP DA was going to give her serious charges, but Gooden said that he wanted to reschedule because he wanted to bring a witness of the assault which was her cousin, Niosha, who has a criminal record of stealing and using Dana’s ID.

They had previously re-scheduled the assault case over 5 times prior to that.  I showed the Harris County DA evidence of my ex-wife allowing our two children to be molested since 2009, and the cops seem not to be investigating the situation thoroughly, she looked at the evidence and shook her head.

She stated I have a lot of evidence against my ex-wife, but Harris County seems to not be able to find the perpetrators. She didn’t say anything else about picking- up the case and trying to find the perpetrators.

I really need to help to overturn Judge York’s decision and every action of my previous of attorneys, Gooden, and Young. The 246th court, CPS, the attorneys, and Harris County Police Department, had a lot of evidence, and chose to cover it up as well making threatening phone calls to my fiancée and myself.

How many children lives will be allowed to be ruined because of the actions and decisions of these people, how many parents who are trying to protect their children, will be humiliated and persecuted because they are for what’s right.

When will the laws change and there be equality for both parents, just because you gave birth to a child does not make you a mother. I am for being with right the parent whether it is mother or father.

My children have a false pretense of what the law is about, they told me “dad we told them what happened and now we can’t come home, and this will never end, family laws in Texas” what does a parent do when you can’t protect your children because of the s and Texas doesn’t have any laws holding people accountable for covering sexual and physical abuse to a child/children.

I am thankful for what i have sown into my children, and that is they continue to trust and believe in God and they continue to pray and ask God to let them come home, which helps build my faith that God will put the right people in place to make sure that no one else has to go through what my family and I have been through.

I am just asking for people to take a stand for what is right and lets make a change, instill in our children morals and values, and protect our future generation from bias of the justice department.

Thank you for taking time to read my letter, I pray that this petition gets to the Supreme Court of Texas and the family law will be changed for the safety of children.

 

 

 

 

 

SANE (sexual assault nurse exam) cases:

PJ

MH – 1/8/2011- John

MH- 1/21/2012- John

TCH- 10/19/2009 – Dana

MH – 9/2010- Dana

 

A.J.H

MH – 1/8/2011 -John

MH – 6/19/2011-John

MH – 8/14/2011 – John

TCH- 10/19/2009 – Dana

MH – 9/2010 – Dana

TCH- 4/29/2012- I refused because I knew Young would retaliate the doctor at St. Luke’s in the Woodlands said that the courts can take of the fact that she ordered a SANE case with her

 

I have posted my story on the internet and multiple parents have contacted me because they are going through the same thing involving some of the same people that was involved in my case. I have completed my counseling session, and still these people find a way for me not be able to see my children.

 

 

God Bless,

 

John Hill

 

Letter to

Governor Rick Perry

NAACP

Supreme Court of Texas

and 3 others

United States Department of Justice

Representative Al Green

Representative Sheila Jackson Lee

Change the laws regarding family law and for a judge, lawyers, CPS, and police officers that assist with covering up sexual abuse and injury to a child in the state of Texas

Updates

  1. 11 months ago
  2. 500 supporters
  3. 2 years ago
  4. john hill started this petition

Petition Closed

505 supporters

495 needed to reach 1,000

United States Department of Justice: Change the laws regarding family law and for…

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,

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

Mother Confronts Convicted KIDS-FOR-CASH Judge, Mark Ciavarella


Mother Sandy Fonzo Confronting Convicted Kids-for-Cash Judge Mark Ciavarella in Luzerne County, Pennsylania after Son Committed Suicide after False Commitment to Juvenile Detention Center like 4,000 other Juveniles Wrongfully Ripped Away from Parents, Families, Friends, and Schools for a Corrupt Judge’s $1,000,000 Kickback–None of the “Players” in Court Spoke Up, but rather, they all “played along.”

Mother Confronts Convicted

KIDS-FOR-CASH Judge, Mark Ciavarella

Luzerne County, PA 

“My son was my life, that’s all I had, and now it’s gone. I don’t have that same life. I don’t exist right now,” Fonzo told CNN.– We hear you, Sandy, and our hearts go out to you and your loss, the world’s loss.  I am so sorry.  This MUST STOP!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wLahyYcu5BE

Uploaded on Feb 21, 2011    

Mother blames Pa. judge for her son’s death, yells at him as he exits court.For more, click here: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id…

 ABC News

Sandy Fonzo’s Beloved Son, Now Deceased, Committed Suicide after being Sentenced by Kids-for-Cash Judge Mark Ciavarella to Juvenile Jail

 

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,



Termination of Parental Rights Reversed in Murfreesboro, TN: In re Alysia S.


Herston on Tennessee Family Law

Knoxville family law attorneysFacts: in 2010, Mother sought assistance in caring for Child after Mother lost her job. She signed a power of attorney and authorization of temporary guardianship stating Child would reside with another couple for approximately six months. During that period, the couple filed a petition alleging Child was dependent and neglected and seeking temporary custody of Child.

The juvenile court found Child dependent and neglected and granted custody to the couple.

Mother appealed to the circuit court, which found no clear and convincing evidence of dependency and neglect and ordered the juvenile court to reunify Child with Mother.

The couple appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court.

Despite that procedural history, Child was never reunified with Mother because, in part, the trial court deferred to a psychologist who wanted to reunify Mother and Child over a period of two years. While this reunification process was occurring…

View original post 904 more words

EMERGENCY PROTECTION ORDER FOR “WHISTLE BLOWER” KIDS DEMANDED OF MINISTRY OF JUSTICE


#MoJ We demand an Immediate Emergency Protection Order for the #WhistleblowerKids

BEWARE SAN ANTONIO: CORRUPT JUDGE SOL CASSEB III IS AT IT AGAIN, SAYS “BATTERED MOTHERS” BLOG


JUDGE SOL CASSEB, III, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS (BEXAR COUNTY) SON OF A JUDGE IN THE SAME COUNTY, SAME NAME, SECOND GENERATION, BUT THEN AGAIN ISN’T THAT THE CASE WITH EVERY JUDGE IN TEXAS YOU EVER KNEW? YA’ KNOW HOW THE SONG PLAYS, FOLKS, “BECAUSE IT’S JUST A FAMILY TRADITION!”

I find that, beyond clear and convincing evidence, the FBI’s most wanted posters with big red X’s splattered as if in blood across the faces of loving mothers who did everything they could to protect the only “possession” that mattered to them, private property sometimes called “child” for deceptive and unnoticed “state” purposes, and worse, with the words “Captured” and dates and locations violently confessing their own sins who marketed this scheme and NCMEC/Silver Care/Amber Alerts–I am told by one in family court that these are nothing more than a way for the govt. to keep track of certain. . . contraband to leverage where someone didn’t get paid, by the way, that no men grace the same posters yet, without a doubt, based on individual observation and experience, threaten to and do actually parentally kidnap their little hostages and flee the country and “state” without every being reported, though the mother was most likely falsely imprisoned and the reports rejected as a “false allegation” from a certain stereotype, pernicious and damning–you know the one–the “hysterical,” “borderline,” “schizophrenic,” or “bi-polar” fit parent who obeyed the law and the court orders to begin with, all to he/r virtue, and downfall.

Battered Mothers - A Human Rights Issue

RightsForMothers

FILED IN: BAD JUDGES, BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD, CHILD ABUSE, CHILD CUSTODY, CHILD CUSTODY BATTLE, CHILDREN’S RIGHTS, COERCIVE CONTROL, CORRUPT JUDGES, CORRUPT BASTARDS, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, FATHERS RIGHTS, GETTING SCREWED BY THE FAMILY COURTS, JEAN PAUL LACOMBE DIAZ,JUDGE SOL CASSEB, LAZY JUDGES, LEGAL ABUSE, NONCUSTODIAL MOTHERS, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

Remember little Jean Paul Lacombe Diaz? You may not, because there is not a lot of Congressmen or other government officials running around screaming to get this child back. Like they so willing do for fathers. Refresh your memory:

Eight months later, Jean Paul is still missing, thanks to Judge Sol Casseb III and his father-loving/mother-hating rulings.

Another dear mother now is facing the wrath of Judge Casseb today. Here are the details:

1. Judge Sol Casseb III, 288 District…

View original post 890 more words

TEXAS JUDGES ON THE TAKE GIVE AWAY|CORRUPT TX


http://www.ppcforchange.com/conspiracy-360th-district-court/

Vaughn Bailey copy

 

Vaughn Bailey, Tarrant County, Texas Attorney near Fort Worth

 

360th-offers-victim-a-deal

http://www.ppcforchange.com/conspiracy-360th-district-court/

Vaughn Bailey copy

Vaughn Bailey, Tarrant County, Texas Attorney near Fort Worth

 

360th-offers-victim-a-deal

For another tragic survival story that began in a Texas family court and a clique of collaborative pseudo-scienters . . . minues the qualifications, , click on the link below to read:

http://www.ppcforchange.com/mothers-quest-lost-infant/

For another tragic survival story that began in a Texas family court and a clique of collaborative pseudo-scienters . . . minues the qualifications, , click on the link below to read:

http://www.ppcforchange.com/mothers-quest-lost-infant/

WHAT’S in a NAME . . . the LONG and SHORT of it: FRAUD Upon the COURT


FRAUD UPON THE COURT

BIRTH CERTIFICATE

The Long and Short of it….

by kate of gaia

It has been a long road to get here. It has been hard to come to terms with many of the lies and fictional realities we have been so carefully trained to believe in. The biggest hurdle of all was in the realising of the need to let everything go and to unpack the camel that it may pass through the eye of the needle of the Emerald City’s walls. A physical reality is a tough one for most to step aside from and seek the inner workings of self and all but it is a necessary step lest one remain in the circular traps so perfectly set for all of us. We live in a world of commerce, a world I call the whore of Babylon both from the physical and spiritual perspectives. In order to be owned, one must give up mind, body and soul and I am most unwilling to do so.
It is a world of make believe fictional characters created for each and every one of us where a few have seen the means to take hold of all the strings of this puppet world where those of the masses unwittingly, yet willingly, perform for these most cunning of “puppet masters”. We have all been deceived where so few, now becoming the many, are awakened from this long lasting sleep having eaten so hungrily of the apple the witch of Babylon has offered.

Oh so many have been duped and beguiled of this mistress of deception where we have fed upon each other to the glee of those pulling your strings. And while we can talk of blame and injustice, it is we who must face the mirror and come to terms with the fact that we, not they, are the true problem. The issue at hand is one of ignorance of self, the unwillingness to see into our own lives and face the mirrors of the darkest reflections. We will fight and we will cling to all that we think of as right and just whilst we, at the same time, are the cause of all our own woes. For me, it was not a matter of how to lay bare the dishonour of so many that was already obvious, it was more a matter of how it was me that was allowing it by being more in dishonour of the truth. Ignorance of the law is not a defence of or from the law, that being the universal, natural kind, not the manmade fictional law that works to mimic it. It is difficult to play any game with an adversary that will change the rules inasmuch as we give them the power to do so. We are as children in this regard. When one grows up, one decides the game unworthy of even taking it out of the box it deserves to remain in, such is the way of Pandora.
So, where to begin explaining this game from its physical and spiritual mirror perspective? I like to begin by reminding myself that the physical realm that surrounds us is the illusion where only cause and effect clues reside. There are no answers in it, none whatsoever. It is merely the game board of consciousness where some have mastered it and use that knowledge for malfeasant purposes, flying in the face of creation while embracing creation at the same time. Some may shout ” Dichotomy!” but the simple truth is, all opposites are the same and only differ in degree of the observers willingness to see it. Yes, the mess you’re in, is your fault if you have the courage to face that. As for the examples of that, one need look no further than the religion of the legal system and, indeed, nowhere else.

The truth of the matter remains that all things legal are all things religion inasmuch as the legal system was borne of it. The earliest courts/churches were and still are the basis of the same systems today where there is no separation of church and state, period. They are one and the same and their purpose has been unwavering in its control of the masses for countless eons. That reign of terror, however, is finally over. Only when one begins to see the connection between church feigning spiritual and state acting as physical can one begin to see the true divide and conquer. What is most profound is that most within positions of assumed power are owned more completely than any slave of the common realms ever could be. A slave understands freedom where one who thinks they are free is the most trapped of all. Even the reference to their religious garb and political robes are called the trappings of office. Nonetheless, the finely programmed egos of these beings keep the clearest of truths just out of range of their most narrow vision. My search was one of a very simple nature in that I had to find the one thing that every human on earth had in common, would take them from cradle to grave in that commonality and, something they would defend to the death for assuring a permanent state of fraud on their part, and no one else’s.

The biggest clue was found at the end of their lives and it can be found on the tombstones of the many that never lived in the eyes of the system. It perfectly matched the only document ever offered freely by any church, state or government. The design of the trap was so perfect in its efficacy, it made us make slaves of ourselves and any attempt to fight for freedom would always result in our own fraud, our own contempt of court and inevitably, our belligerence and circular vengeance. The slavery had to be freely given on our parts and in our ignorance. It had to be something that fed the ego of the belligerents and the coffers of the clergy and all the while, they retained their full honour in universal law standing. While the masses fight for what they think is right, they feed their own fires of hate, discord and division. The more injust the system would get, the harder they would fight empowering the very system that is feeding off of them. The litmus test for this is quite easy to see and it will be the ones fighting this concept that proves the worthiness of the trap rendering it inescapable for the majority. This is the Chinese finger trap in full bloom where the harder you pull to extricate yourself from it, the more it holds on until one tires enough, relaxes their grip and voila, your fingers escape easily. There is a reason why the fangs of a serpent are pointing inward in that the more the prey struggles to free itself, the deeper the fangs sink in and why it is best to avoid the snake in the first place non? So, what could be so simple as to permeate this most perfect Chinese finger trap on humanity?
For the astute and for those that have listened to me speak or read my writings, you already know where I’m going but for those less aware of what I speak of, the answers, was and always will be, the NAME. I will share a few perspectives on this to aid in the observations of the trap where many of you may scoff. Always keep in mind, I care not what you believe and neither does the truth, that’s a simple fact. I have my experiences where this has all been laid bare for me and I have shared this truth for years now, albeit getting easier to share with people seeing this or themselves. You can spend all the time you want in their courtrooms but there is only one certainty you can ever expect and that is the fact that the courts are their game, rigged to their rules and they want everyone to play because it is guaranteed that they will win every time and “lose” a few just to keep the lottery illusion alive that on occasion, someone wins a case or two. This is the same philosophy a carnival gamer uses. They love to let people win their useless junk because the profits far exceed the expenses. Same things with the courts so who is the carnival clown then? There will be many that still won’t get it after they read this but it is my hope and intention that they can swallow enough pride and ego to find the keys that will set them free. The chains that you think are binding you are the very ones that you keep firmly in your grip where all you have to do is let go….but many of you won’t and to your own peril and so be it.

Where the true power of the NAME comes into play is the sudden realisation that everything you’ve worked for, everything you own and everything you will ever own up until you let go, was gotten via fraudulent means using a name that does not belong to you. This is a very tough pill to swallow and many of you are already choking, will spit it up and go on doing what the puppet masters want you to do. You will continue to commit fraud, day after day and you will be happy to do so as long as you keep getting your trinkets and scraps using a stolen identity and fraudulent, worthless pieces of debt paper. The system had to get us to aid and bet in our own fraud to retain the upper hand of honour where we were always coming forward with “unclean hands”. It had to be “sold” to us in such a way as to we would see the benefits and miss the tricks and dive headlong into our own fraud and fight to the death to maintain it. Ah, it is so easy to control a child with treats and they don’t have to be big ones either, just treats is enough most days.
To bring this into perspective, let me share a few fundamental definitions of words for you without going into the deep etymological sources, suffice it to say, been there, done that and cracked the code to the very letters. Let’s take a look at the word “register” for example and what its real meaning is. There are two very clear words there for me, the first being “regis” which is Latin for “to rule” and “ster” which means “creative, divine, feminine essence” and is akin to “star” where you can at once see the relevance of “starr contracts” from Black’s Law 9th edition.

So, the word means quite literally “to rule the divine feminine” or creation herself. Many of you who may be versed somewhat in “legalese” will recognise the term “pro se” which means to speak for yourself in a court setting. That translates into “for himself/herself/itself” and if you don’t believe it, look it up for yourself. The word “prosecute” translates into “do not pursue” in legal realms where its mirror in mainstream think is one of going after someone in court, to prosecute. The truth is, they don’t have to pursue anything because the mere fact that you are in a courtroom and don’t know who you are, is sufficient to convict your sorry ass for contempt and id-entity theft of intellectual property that was freely given to them. I’m sure much of this is not sitting well with you but then it’s the warring nature of the ego to want to fight, flee or freeze since it is ruled by the reptilian brainstem. Only when we decide to raise our level of thinking into the higher brains can we begin to set ourselves free. Allow me to share a few facts as experienced by myself. On that document, the only one ever given to my parents regarding their deal with the devil called the Birth Certificate, it states quite clearly:
“WARNING: A CERTIFICATE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY yet go and try to get any state ID without one. If it’s not meant to be used for identity, then what the hell is it for? It also says “CAUTION: THERE ARE OFFENCES RELATING TO FALSIFYING OR ALTERING A CERTIFICATE AND USING OR POSSESSING A FALSE CERTIFICATE. © CROWN COPYRIGHT It can be easily seen that if one were to use this document for such a thing as identification, one would be creating a false certificate and then possessing it. I can get into all measure of what it’s used for such as bonds creation, money creation, allowing for signature hypothecations etc. and on and on but I’m interested only in its fundamental purpose of tying the living spirit to the dead fictional realms. The birth Certificate is actually a Death Certificate.

We can also go on and on discussing all manner of legal attributes as per the hopes of those that designed the game to keep you looking everywhere but within so I won’t even bother and if that’s where you want to go, you’re missing the point yet again. I’ve been where you are, I’ve made the legal arguments ad nauseum and I assure you, that is exactly what the system wants you to do because in doing so, they keep you fighting in their courts, their system and ultimately in their religion of Ba’al worship with the whore of Babylon owning your sorry asses every time. You can talk to me all day about this document and that procedure, this tactic and that remedy illusion but for me, the fact remains; how are you going to do this WITHOUT using their NAME? The fact is, you can’t and it was designed that way. There is but one thing left to do and one question left to ask any court: “Who owns the NAME?” I already know the answer and so do they. The trick is getting you to BE the NAME and DO things in their image of you THEY created.

We can go into the Roman Maxims for things like “silence equates acquiescence” or Qui tacet consentire videtur. He who is silent appears to consent. Jenk. Cent. 32. where there is also silence upon the deceiver and thus their own acquiescence to committing it knowingly or unknowingly.
Fraus est celare fraudem. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. 1 Vern. 270. and Fraus et dolus nemini patrocianari debent. Fraud and deceit should excuse no man. 3 Co. 78. I prefer to use simple analogies in that the one doing the stabbing with a knife also turns the knife upon themselves as per the golden rule. In a nutshell, it works like this. Mum and Dad, not knowing any better and trusting in others to not harm or defraud them have been told that it is customary to register their children with the state and/or church, called baptism. Regardless, there is no division of church and state in that they are one and the same as previously stated. The clergy of old were the courts of old and thus the judges and lawyers which became the BAR society and, of course, the governments and lawmakers as a result. In essence, the foxes are guarding all the henhouses. The parents, having done what they thought was right and being trusting never assumed that anyone could be so evil and devious as to spiritually kidnap their children from them and had no real questions to ask and no truths of what was really going on was given.
Shortly thereafter a document called the Long form birth certificate is created which is the original fraud and then a Short form was also created which creates the fictional corporation or dead thing/person/strawman or whatever you want to call it. Bottom line, the Short form is the proof of the fraud. Mum and Dad, being none the wiser as to their actions, keep using the NAME they gave up for adoption to the STATE by addressing their child with it, convincing the child that the NAME is theirs when, in fact, it is not. Mum and Dad are guilty of aiding and abetting their child into fraud absolving the STATE of dishonour UNTIL this disclosure is asked for. Indeed, who owns the NAME now? It certainly isn’t you and the sooner you get that concept, the sooner you’ll stop aiding and abetting in your own frauds and being possessed by your possessions. Did you never wonder why they refer to belongings as possessions or repossessing things?

The original fraud goes back even further with Mum and Dad getting married in a church or through a government office. Did you get married in a church and sign a marriage license? Then, if you did, the church AND the STATE owns your marriage and everything done within the confines of that contract and it IS a contract of a most spiritual nature, have no doubts on that. Now, to get a little deeper into the spiritual traps here, one must ask oneself as to why the system goes after the feminine creation aspect and here’s where I’m going to lose a lot of ego driven uber-programmed churchianity types that can’t let go of the most insidious program of all regarding the patriarchal control of their minds. Dare to read on if you can and see if you can get past all the dogmas and indoctrinations that have been slammed into you since birth.
When one understands the true nature of creation, one will quickly see that it is the feminine that brings forth creation, not the masculine. It’s even spelled out in Black’s Law 9th for you if you can read it. I am adding it here for your perusal with an explanation of its more ethereal and spiritual bindings. * ward of admiralty, A seaman – so called because of the legal view that a seaman, in contractual matters, should be treated as a beneficiary and the other contracting party as a fiduciary because of the perceived inequitability of their bargaining positions. [Cases: Seamen (;::J 1.] I am the stock of my Mother/Father, self-evident in the blood/aether in my lineage/veins, mitochondrial DNA “delta 9 Lucifer delta 10 mdna” from my Mother which is prima facie evidence of my bloodline (rhA+) where my Father is the beneficiary of any/all ascendants borne to him. The Father (semen*) of any/all borne to him render him the beneficiary only, whereas the Mother is fiduciary.

This where one needs eyes to see AND ears to hear….Seaman/Semen is merely the word trickery the courts and the masters of deception revel in. If anyone asks for me “give me your name” I have but one simple answer and that is “no, but I will let you hear my customary calling if you need a sound to reference my physical body by”. Here’s why I will never GIVE anyone anything without my intention to do so willingly because here, as below is also contract, as above. It was said to me once by one of the lawyers from the CITY OF LONDON, STATE BAR MEMBER that “here, it is ALL about contract”. The use of the NAME, without explicit permission from its rightful owners, The CROWN, is engaging in fraud and the use of stolen intellectual property as confirmed, in voice and in face to face conversations with an embassy official of the BRITISH HIGH CONSULATE, OTTAWA, CANADA that it is, IN FACT, fraud to do so and why I was able to procure an emergency passport as a result.
I have been lied to by more so called officials, legal types, judges and politicians than I’d care to count and the one thing that they all have in common is that they know they’re doing it and where I revert to “Fraus et dolus nemini patrocianari debent. Fraud and deceit should excuse no man. 3 Co. 78.” rendering all frauds, null and void, nunc pro tunc upon its revelation. What I did learn over time was how to ask the right questions to corner them by getting them to be doing me harm otherwise. Questions like “Is it your wish that I commit fraud?” or “Is it your intention to aid and abet me into committing fraud by using a NAME that clearly does not belong to me?”
These are the mirrors they cannot stomach because they know what they are doing, many of them and especially the ones that claim to be “just doing my job”. There is much joy to be found in their frauds however, once they are mirrored back because there is no limitations placed on a fraud regardless of how long it takes to expose it. That is the joy of “nunc pro tunc” or “now for then” which eliminates the time aspect bringing all crimes into the now for all to see. For those that still can’t see the truth in how it is WE who are aiding and abetting in our own fraud, let me clarify it for you further.
Here are a few questions that you need to ask yourself honestly, the truth cannot be denied within no matter how hard you try to convince yourself otherwise. If you cannot face up to these realities, then you are not awake or mature enough to be considered enlightened, sorry to inform you. My mirror informed me nicely and no, I wasn’t happy either. Here they are…..Do you have any government ID whatsoever such as a driver’s license, a passport, or anything of that nature? Do you have a bank account or credit/debit card?
Do you have any loans or mortgages with contracts in the system? Do you feel the incessant need to fight in courts? Do you sign things like checks, applications or any manner of paperwork? In short, do you use the NAME on the birth certificate every day in all your transactions and communications?
If you answered yes to any of these questions then you are committing fraud, are in contempt of court and are seen as a belligerent. People ask how the cops get away with beating people on the street and I say it’s easy; they’re beating up a criminal who insists on committing fraud by virtue of the IDENTIFICATION they carry and how they procured it of their own free will choice to go into a fraudulent contract using a NAME that doesn’t belong to them. Unless of course, you think that writing checks on someone else’s account is a good and lawful thing that is. Anything and everything ever created in your universe using the NAME on the BC DOES NOT belong to you….PERIOD and like Bill Hicks says, “I can hear your inner dialogue, you’re wrong, get over it”……Until you can face up to the fact that you’ve been duped grand scale, you will continue to fight a losing battle with the whores of Babylon because of your “mark of the beast” and they know it. They have you right where they want you; in permanent dishonour until the question of “Who owns the NAME?” is the first question asked if you must go into court. For further understandings of how the courts work and get their power beyond this most basic truth.
In order for the dark principalities to control this place and our lives and minds, they must take our creative spiritual energy to give them the energy these vampires require to continue. No, this is not just a physical game and truth be known, the physical is the smallest percentage of it where the real power lays hidden to the blind. I know many of you may finally start to see the gravity of this situation and are asking yourself what to do as far as getting back into honour.
The first thing that needs to happen is to wake up to this reality and shift your intention. It is too easy to become overwhelmed with all the situations and entanglements you have in this life but have some peace knowing that you have a new perspective as to your slavery and how you’re being made to serve it. Changing ones intention requires the baby steps doctrine and only doing the things you need to do and can do easily, step by step. for some of you, calling up your bank to have a chat with a bank manager regarding who owns the name/account etc. You may wish to ask some CRA or IRS branches some of the tougher questions all the while making sure you commit them into aiding and abetting the frauds. It’s really quite simple that without the NAME’s being used and more importantly, SIGNATURES being given period, this system and its vampires starve literally overnight. For the more spiritually awake and astute, you will already understand that the signature comes AFTER the intent/spiritual contract and not before it. Actions always come after I am going to add another article at the bottom of this essay that is what I sent to various government offices etc. to get my intent out there because I know the power of intent where the cause and effect is already rippling through the universe. Always remember, ye are gods and you’ve been duped out of it for a very long time and have suffered immensely over many lifetimes. Time to wake up once and for all…..the truth is, lose the NAME, end the game so we can all get back to being the incredible creators we are and not the mindless slaves we became. Much love and light, kate of gaia…….
p.s Why it is important to understand what a gift really is: GIFT: a voluntary transfer of property made without consideration, that is, for which no value is received in return. The essential components of a valid completed gift of personal property are: competency of the donor to understand the nature of his act; voluntary intent on the part of the donor to make a gift (called DONATIVE INTENT);

DELIVERY either actual or symbolic;

ACCEPTANCE, actual or imputed; complete divestment of all control by the donor; and a lack of consideration for the gift. A transfer that constitutes a gift may be of significance in several TAX contexts. For example, RECEIPT of a gift is excluded from the GROSS INCOME of the recipient, but the transferor may be subject to the unified estate and gift tax.

DONATIVE INTENT (Black’s 8th): the intent to surrender DOMINION and control over the GIFT that is being made. DOMINION: having BOTH title to AND possession of property; having CONTROL of both ownership and use.
1. Given NAME……incompetently given by parents due to non-disclosure….voluntary only on a deceptive, non-disclosed basis and f

The Long and Short of it….by kate of gaia
It has been a long road to get here. It has been hard to come to terms with many of the lies and fictional realities we have been so carefully trained to believe in. The biggest hurdle of all was in the realising of the need to let everything go and to unpack the camel that it may pass through the eye of the needle of the Emerald City’s walls. A physical reality is a tough one for most to step aside from and seek the inner workings of self and all but it is a necessary step lest one remain in the circular traps so perfectly set for all of us. We live in a world of commerce, a world I call the whore of Babylon both from the physical and spiritual perspectives. In order to be owned, one must give up mind, body and soul and I am most unwilling to do so.
It is a world of make believe fictional characters created for each and every one of us where a few have seen the means to take hold of all the strings of this puppet world where those of the masses unwittingly, yet willingly, perform for these most cunning of “puppet masters”. We have all been deceived where so few, now becoming the many, are awakened from this long lasting sleep having eaten so hungrily of the apple the witch of Babylon has offered. Oh so many have been duped and beguiled of this mistress of deception where we have fed upon each other to the glee of those pulling your strings. And while we can talk of blame and injustice, it is we who must face the mirror and come to terms with the fact that we, not they, are the true problem. The issue at hand is one of ignorance of self, the unwillingness to see into our own lives and face the mirrors of the darkest reflections. We will fight and we will cling to all that we think of as right and just whilst we, at the same time, are the cause of all our own woes.
For me, it was not a matter of how to lay bare the dishonour of so many that was already obvious, it was more a matter of how it was me that was allowing it by being more in dishonour of the truth. Ignorance of the law is not a defence of or from the law, that being the universal, natural kind, not the man-made fictional law that works to mimic it. It is difficult to play any game with an adversary that will change the rules inasmuch as we give them the power to do so. We are as children in this regard. When one grows up, one decides the game unworthy of even taking it out of the box it deserves to remain in, such is the way of Pandora.
So, where to begin explaining this game from its physical and spiritual mirror perspective? I like to begin by reminding myself that the physical realm that surrounds us is the illusion where only cause and effect clues reside. There are no answers in it, none whatsoever. It is merely the game board of consciousness where some have mastered it and use that knowledge for malfeasant purposes, flying in the face of creation while embracing creation at the same time.

Some may shout ” Dichotomy!” but the simple truth is, all opposites are the same and only differ in degree of the observers willingness to see it. Yes, the mess you’re in, is your fault if you have the courage to face that. As for the examples of that, one need look no further than the religion of the legal system and, indeed, nowhere else. The truth of the matter remains that all things legal are all things religion inasmuch as the legal system was borne of it. The earliest courts/churches were and still are the basis of the same systems today where there is no separation of church and state, period. They are one and the same and their purpose has been unwavering in its control of the masses for countless eons. That reign of terror, however, is finally over. Only when one begins to see the connection between church feigning spiritual and state acting as physical can one begin to see the true divide and conquer.
What is most profound is that most within positions of assumed power are owned more completely than any slave of the common realms ever could be. A slave understands freedom where one who thinks they are free is the most trapped of all. Even the reference to their religious garb and political robes are called the trappings of office. Nonetheless, the finely programmed egos of these beings keep the clearest of truths just out of range of their most narrow vision. My search was one of a very simple nature in that I had to find the one thing that every human on earth had in common, would take them from cradle to grave in that commonality and, something they would defend to the death for assuring a permanent state of fraud on their part, and no one else’s. The biggest clue was found at the end of their lives and it can be found on the tombstones of the many that never lived in the eyes of the system. It perfectly matched the only document ever offered freely by any church, state or government. The design of the trap was so perfect in its efficacy, it made us make slaves of ourselves and any attempt to fight for freedom would always result in our own fraud, our own contempt of court and inevitably, our belligerence and circular vengeance. The slavery had to be freely given on our parts and in our ignorance. It had to be something that fed the ego of the belligerents and the coffers of the clergy and all the while, they retained their full honour in universal law standing. While the masses fight for what they think is right, they feed their own fires of hate, discord and division. The more injust the system would get, the harder they would fight empowering the very system that is feeding off of them. The litmus test for this is quite easy to see and it will be the ones fighting this concept that proves the worthiness of the trap rendering it inescapable for the majority. This is the Chinese finger trap in full bloom where the harder you pull to extricate yourself from it, the more it holds on until one tires enough, relaxes their grip and voila, your fingers escape easily. There is a reason why the fangs of a serpent are pointing inward in that the more the prey struggles to free itself, the deeper the fangs sink in and why it is best to avoid the snake in the first place non?
So, what could be so simple as to permeate this most perfect Chinese finger trap on humanity? For the astute and for those that have listened to me speak or read my writings, you already know where I’m going but for those less aware of what I speak of, the answers, was and always will be, the NAME. I will share a few perspectives on this to aid in the observations of the trap where many of you may scoff. Always keep in mind, I care not what you believe and neither does the truth, that’s a simple fact. I have my experiences where this has all been laid bare for me and I have shared this truth for years now, albeit getting easier to share with people seeing this or themselves. You can spend all the time you want in their courtrooms but there is only one certainty you can ever expect and that is the fact that the courts are their game, rigged to their rules and they want everyone to play because it is guaranteed that they will win every time and “lose” a few just to keep the lottery illusion alive that on occasion, someone wins a case or two. This is the same philosophy a carnival gamer uses. They love to let people win their useless junk because the profits far exceed the expenses. Same things with the courts so who is the carnival clown then?
There will be many that still won’t get it after they read this but it is my hope and intention that they can swallow enough pride and ego to find the keys that will set them free. The chains that you think are binding you are the very ones that you keep firmly in your grip where all you have to do is let go….but many of you won’t and to your own peril and so be it. Where the true power of the NAME comes into play is the sudden realisation that everything you’ve worked for, everything you own and everything you will ever own up until you let go, was gotten via fraudulent means using a name that does not belong to you. This is a very tough pill to swallow and many of you are already choking, will spit it up and go on doing what the puppet masters want you to do. You will continue to commit fraud, day after day and you will be happy to do so as long as you keep getting your trinkets and scraps using a stolen identity and fraudulent, worthless pieces of debt paper.
The system had to get us to aid and bet in our own fraud to retain the upper hand of honour where we were always coming forward with “unclean hands”. It had to be “sold” to us in such a way as to we would see the benefits and miss the tricks and dive headlong into our own fraud and fight to the death to maintain it. Ah, it is so easy to control a child with treats and they don’t have to be big ones either, just treats is enough most days. To bring this into perspective, let me share a few fundamental definitions of words for you without going into the deep etymological sources, suffice it to say, been there, done that and cracked the code to the very letters.
Let’s take a look at the word “register” for example and what its real meaning is. There are two very clear words there for me, the first being “regis” which is Latin for “to rule” and “ster” which means “creative, divine, feminine essence” and is akin to “star” where you can at once see the relevance of “starr contracts” from Black’s Law 9th edition. So, the word means quite literally “to rule the divine feminine” or creation herself. Many of you who may be versed somewhat in “legalese” will recognise the term “pro se” which means to speak for yourself in a court setting. That translates into “for himself/herself/itself” and if you don’t believe it, look it up for yourself. The word “prosecute” translates into “do not pursue” in legal realms where its mirror in mainstream think is one of going after someone in court, to prosecute. The truth is, they don’t have to pursue anything because the mere fact that you are in a courtroom and don’t know who you are, is sufficient to convict your sorry ass for contempt and id-entity theft of intellectual property that was freely given to them. I’m sure much of this is not sitting well with you but then it’s the warring nature of the ego to want to fight, flee or freeze since it is ruled by the reptilian brainstem. Only when we decide to raise our level of thinking into the higher brains can we begin to set ourselves free. Allow me to share a few facts as experienced by myself. On that document, the only one ever given to my parents regarding their deal with the devil called the Birth Certificate, it states quite clearly:
“WARNING: A CERTIFICATE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY yet go and try to get any state ID without one. If it’s not meant to be used for identity, then what the hell is it for? It also says “CAUTION: THERE ARE OFFENCES RELATING TO FALSIFYING OR ALTERING A CERTIFICATE AND USING OR POSSESSING A FALSE CERTIFICATE. © CROWN COPYRIGHT
It can be easily seen that if one were to use this document for such a thing as identification, one would be creating a false certificate and then possessing it. I can get into all measure of what it’s used for such as bonds creation, money creation, allowing for signature hypothecations etc. and on and on but I’m interested only in its fundamental purpose of tying the living spirit to the dead fictional realms. The birth Certificate is actually a Death Certificate. We can also go on and on discussing all manner of legal attributes as per the hopes of those that designed the game to keep you looking everywhere but within so I won’t even bother and if that’s where you want to go, you’re missing the point yet again. I’ve been where you are, I’ve made the legal arguments ad nauseum and I assure you, that is exactly what the system wants you to do because in doing so, they keep you fighting in their courts, their system and ultimately in their religion of Ba’al worship with the whore of Babylon owning your sorry asses every time. You can talk to me all day about this document and that procedure, this tactic and that remedy illusion but for me, the fact remains; how are you going to do this WITHOUT using their NAME? The fact is, you can’t and it was designed that way.
There is but one thing left to do and one question left to ask any court: “Who owns the NAME?” I already know the answer and so do they.The trick is getting you to BE the NAME and DO things in their image of you THEY created. We can go into the Roman Maxims for things like “silence equates acquiescence” or Qui tacet consentire videtur. He who is silent appears to consent. Jenk. Cent. 32. where there is also silence upon the deceiver and thus their own acquiescence to committing it knowingly or unknowingly. Fraus est celare fraudem. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. 1 Vern. 270. and Fraus et dolus nemini patrocianari debent. Fraud and deceit should excuse no man. 3 Co. 78. I prefer to use simple analogies in that the one doing the stabbing with a knife also turns the knife upon themselves as per the golden rule. In a nutshell, it works like this. Mum and Dad, not knowing any better and trusting in others to not harm or defraud them have been told that it is customary to register their children with the state and/or church, called baptism. Regardless, there is no division of church and state in that they are one and the same as previously stated. The clergy of old were the courts of old and thus the judges and lawyers which became the BAR society and, of course, the governments and lawmakers as a result. In essence, the foxes are guarding all the henhouses. The parents, having done what they thought was right and being trusting never assumed that anyone could be so evil and devious as to spiritually kidnap their children from them and had no real questions to ask and no truths of what was really going on was given.
Shortly thereafter a document called the Long form birth certificate is created which is the original fraud and then a Short form was also created which creates the fictional corporation or dead thing/person/strawman or whatever you want to call it. Bottom line, the Short form is the proof of the fraud. Mum and Dad, being none the wiser as to their actions, keep using the NAME they gave up for adoption to the STATE by addressing their child with it, convincing the child that the NAME is theirs when, in fact, it is not. Mum and Dad are guilty of aiding and abetting their child into fraud absolving the STATE of dishonour UNTIL this disclosure is asked for. Indeed, who owns the NAME now? It certainly isn’t you and the sooner you get that concept, the sooner you’ll stop aiding and abetting in your own frauds and being possessed by your possessions.
Did you never wonder why they refer to belongings as possessions or repossessing things? The original fraud goes back even further with Mum and Dad getting married in a church or through a government office. Did you get married in a church and sign a marriage license? Then, if you did, the church AND the STATE owns your marriage and everything done within the confines of that contract and it IS a contract of a most spiritual nature, have no doubts on that. Now, to get a little deeper into the spiritual traps here, one must ask oneself as to why the system goes after the feminine creation aspect and here’s where I’m going to lose a lot of ego driven uber-programmed churchianity types that can’t let go of the most insidious program of all regarding the patriarchal control of their minds. Dare to read on if you can and see if you can get past all the dogmas and indoctrinations that have been slammed into you since birth.

When one understands the true nature of creation, one will quickly see that it is the feminine that brings forth creation, not the masculine. It’s even spelled out in Black’s Law 9th for you if you can read it. I am adding it here for your perusal with an explanation of its more ethereal and spiritual bindings. * ward of admiralty, A seaman – so called because of the legal view that a seaman, in contractual matters, should be treated as a beneficiary and the other contracting party as a fiduciary because of the perceived inequitability of their bargaining positions. [Cases: Seamen (;::J 1.] I am the stock of my Mother/Father, self-evident in the blood/aether in my lineage/veins, mitochondrial DNA “delta 9 Lucifer delta 10 mdna” from my Mother which is prima facie evidence of my bloodline (rhA+) where my Father is the beneficiary of any/all ascendants borne to him. The Father (semen*) of any/all borne to him render him the beneficiary only, whereas the Mother is fiduciary. This where one needs eyes to see AND ears to hear….Seaman/Semen is merely the word trickery the courts and the masters of deception revel in.
If anyone asks for me “give me your name” I have but one simple answer and that is “no, but I will let you hear my customary calling if you need a sound to reference my physical body by”. Here’s why I will never GIVE anyone anything without my intention to do so willingly because here, as below is also contract, as above. It was said to me once by one of the lawyers from the CITY OF LONDON, STATE BAR MEMBER that “here, it is ALL about contract”. The use of the NAME, without explicit permission from its rightful owners, The CROWN, is engaging in fraud and the use of stolen intellectual property as confirmed, in voice and in face to face conversations with an embassy official of the BRITISH HIGH CONSULATE, OTTAWA, CANADA that it is, IN FACT, fraud to do so and why I was able to procure an emergency passport as a result.
I have been lied to by more so called officials, legal types, judges and politicians than I’d care to count and the one thing that they all have in common is that they know they’re doing it and where I revert to “Fraus et dolus nemini patrocianari debent. Fraud and deceit should excuse no man. 3 Co. 78.” rendering all frauds, null and void, nunc pro tunc upon its revelation. What I did learn over time was how to ask the right questions to corner them by getting them to be doing me harm otherwise. Questions like “Is it your wish that I commit fraud?” or “Is it your intention to aid and abet me into committing fraud by using a NAME that clearly does not belong to me?” These are the mirrors they cannot stomach because they know what they are doing, many of them and especially the ones that claim to be “just doing my job”. There is much joy to be found in their frauds however, once they are mirrored back because there is no limitations placed on a fraud regardless of how long it takes to expose it. That is the joy of “nunc pro tunc” or “now for then” which eliminates the time aspect bringing all crimes into the now for all to see. For those that still can’t see the truth in how it is WE who are aiding and abetting in our own fraud, let me clarify it for you further.
Here are a few questions that you need to ask yourself honestly, the truth cannot be denied within no matter how hard you try to convince yourself otherwise. If you cannot face up to these realities, then you are not awake or mature enough to be considered enlightened, sorry to inform you. My mirror informed me nicely and no, I wasn’t happy either. Here they are…..Do you have any government ID whatsoever such as a driver’s license, a passport, or anything of that nature? Do you have a bank account or credit/debit card? Do you have any loans or mortgages with contracts in the system? Do you feel the incessant need to fight in courts? Do you sign things like checks, applications or any manner of paperwork? In short, do you use the NAME on the birth certificate every day in all your transactions and communications? If you answered yes to any of these questions then you are committing fraud, are in contempt of court and are seen as a belligerent. People ask how the cops get away with beating people on the street and I say it’s easy; they’re beating up a criminal who insists on committing fraud by virtue of the IDENTIFICATION they carry and how they procured it of their own free will choice to go into a fraudulent contract using a NAME that doesn’t belong to them. Unless of course, you think that writing checks on someone else’s account is a good and lawful thing that is. Anything and everything ever created in your universe using the NAME on the BC DOES NOT belong to you….PERIOD and like Bill Hicks says, “I can hear your inner dialogue, you’re wrong, get over it”……Until you can face up to the fact that you’ve been duped grand scale, you will continue to fight a losing battle with the whores of Babylon because of your “mark of the beast” and they know it. They have you right where they want you; in permanent dishonour until the question of “Who owns the NAME?” is the first question asked if you must go into court.
For further understandings of how the courts work and get their power beyond this most basic truth. In order for the dark principalities to control this place and our lives and minds, they must take our creative spiritual energy to give them the energy these vampires require to continue. No, this is not just a physical game and truth be known, the physical is the smallest percentage of it where the real power lays hidden to the blind. I know many of you may finally start to see the gravity of this situation and are asking yourself what to do as far as getting back into honour. The first thing that needs to happen is to wake up to this reality and shift your intention. It is too easy to become overwhelmed with all the situations and entanglements you have in this life but have some peace knowing that you have a new perspective as to your slavery and how you’re being made to serve it. Changing ones intention requires the baby steps doctrine and only doing the things you need to do and can do easily, step by step.
for some of you, calling up your bank to have a chat with a bank manager regarding who owns the name/account etc. You may wish to ask some CRA or IRS branches some of the tougher questions all the while making sure you commit them into aiding and abetting the frauds. It’s really quite simple that without the NAME’s being used and more importantly, SIGNATURES being given period, this system and its vampires starve literally overnight. For the more spiritually awake and astute, you will already understand that the signature comes AFTER the intent/spiritual contract and not before it. Actions always come after thoughts.

If you intend it; it is CONTRACT without another thing being physically done. I am going to add another article at the bottom of this essay that is what I sent to various government offices etc. to get my intent out there because I know the power of intent where the cause and effect is already rippling through the universe. Always remember, ye are gods and you’ve been duped out of it for a very long time and have suffered immensely over many lifetimes. Time to wake up once and for all…..the truth is, lose the NAME, end the game so we can all get back to being the incredible creators we are and not the mindless slaves we became. Much love and light, kate of gaia…….
p.s Why it is important to understand what a gift really is:
GIFT: a voluntary transfer of property made without consideration, that is, for which no value is received in return. The essential components of a valid completed gift of personal property are:
1. competency of the donor to understand the nature of his act; voluntary intent on the part of the donor to make a gift (called DONATIVE INTENT);
2. DELIVERY either actual or symbolic; ACCEPTANCE, actual or imputed; complete divestment of all control by the donor; and a lack of consideration for the gift. A transfer that constitutes a gift may be of significance in several TAX contexts. For example, RECEIPT of a gift is excluded from the GROSS INCOME of the recipient, but the transferor may be subject to the unified estate and gift tax.;
3. DONATIVE INTENT (Black’s 8th): the intent to surrender DOMINION and control over the GIFT that is being made. DOMINION: having BOTH title to AND possession of property; having CONTROL of both ownership and use.
Given NAME……incompetently given by parents due to non-disclosure….voluntary only on a deceptive, non-disclosed basis and fraudulent intent by the deceivers nullifying intent on the “donors”…..nuff said with domini
(as in “A.D.,” “anno domini,”—Christian calendar beginning at the time of Jesus Christ’s, or, “Jeshua’s,” birth, and “M.D.,” “mundial domini”—Gregorian calendar)

RESEARCH SURVEY COLLECTION|California Protective Parent Association


 

 

RESEARCH SURVEY COLLECTION

California Protective Parent Association and Our Future Charitable Foundation are conducting an ongoing collection of data for a national research project. The project involves cases of children placed by family law courts into the custody of, or unsupervised visitation with their identified abusing parent.
The collection and compilation of this data is a very important step in promoting awareness, providing actual statistics, increasing funding possibilities, and bringing about family court reform and legislative change. Your input is greatly appreciated.
You can see the results of our preliminary survey after 22 participants on our Research Data page, and an updated May 2003 statistical report after 67 participants by visiting the California Protective Parents site by clicking here.

PROTECTIVE PARENT SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Re: Custody Outcomes of Children Reporting Incest/Battery

NOTE: If you are concerned about secure confidentiality, we suggest you PRINT this survey (from pdf format) and mail it to us by US mail at our CPPA/OCOF address. If you prefer and are not concerned with confidentiality, you may send it online, but be aware it is not on a secured server at this time.
Identifying information is for contact information purposes only, and will not be included in our data.

CONTACT INFORMATION
 Your Name:
 Mailing Address:
 City:
 State:

Please answer all questions appropriate to your case.You may use the space below for comments or questions: Thank you for contributing to this survey.
Please print and mail this survey to: CPPA/OCOF 1731 Howe Ave. #168, Sacramento, CA 95825-9785
Or fax it to: (530) 758-9785 (phone: 800 441-7886)
Or submit it electronically by clicking the “send Request” button below. (Confidentiality respected, but not guaranteed, due to Internet security.)

 Zip Code:
 Phone Number:
 Alternate Phone:
 E-mail Address:
CASE INFORMATION
     Case Name:
1.) Jurisdiction State:
2.) Jurisdiction County:
3.) Case Number:
4.) Year documents 1st filed:
5.) Case still in progress? Yes No
FINANCIAL COST
6.) Approximate sum of money paid related to case?
      (Include attorney fees, court filings, mediation, evaluations, supervised       visitation, court ordered classes, therapy, etc.)
7.) Have you ever had to file bankruptcy as a result of litigation costs?       Yes No
ATTORNEY HISTORY
8.) Have you ever been represented by an attorney in this case?       Yes No
9.) If so, how many attorneys represented you in this case?
10.) Has your ex-spouse/partner ever had legal representation when        you did not? Yes No
CHILDREN
11.) What were the ages of the child(ren) of this relationship at the time        of the separation?        Girl’s ages:      Boy’s ages:
12.) What is the approximate percentage of time each caretaker spent        caring for the child(ren) before the separation?         Mother:   %         Father:    %         Relative:      %         Other:          %
13.) At the time of separation, did the primary caretaker maintain primary        physical custody? Yes No
PRIMARY ISSUES
14.) Over which of the following issues were there disputes in your court        case? (mark all that apply)         Property settlement         Spousal support         Child support         Move away         Child custody/visitation         Alcoholism         Drug abuse/type of drugs:         Other:
15.) Who initiated the litigation?         Mother         Father
16.) Were you the victim of domestic violence perpetrated upon you by        the other parent? Yes No
17.) If so, did your children witness the violence?        Yes No
18.) Did the violence begin or escalate after separation?        Yes No
19.) Did your ex-spouse/partner ever threaten to take the child(ren) if        you left the relationship? Yes No
20.) Were there allegations of child abuse made during your family        court litigation? Yes No
ABUSE ALLEGATIONS
Complete the information below regarding allegations made during litigation, including who is the identified perpetrator and who first made the allegation (mark all that apply):
21.) Physical abuse allegation? Yes No        Identified as perpetrator:FatherMotherOther:        First allegated by:ChildFatherMotherOther:
22.) Sexual abuse allegation? Yes No        Identified as perpetrator:FatherMotherOther:        First allegated by:ChildFatherMotherOther:
23.) Verbal/emotional abuse allegation? Yes No        Identified as perpetrator:FatherMotherOther:        First allegated by:ChildFatherMotherOther:
24.) Neglect allegation? Yes No        Identified as perpetrator:FatherMotherOther:        First allegated by:ChildFatherMotherOther:
25.) Other allegation? Yes No        Identified as perpetrator:FatherMotherOther:        First allegated by:ChildFatherMotherOther:
26.) What was the age and gender of the first child at the onset of        his/her abuse?   Boy Girl
27.) What was the age and gender of the second child at the onset of        his/her abuse?   Boy Girl
28.) Did the child positively identify the other parent as the perpetrator?        Yes No
29.) Was there medical/physical evidence of the abuse?        Yes No
30.) Was there other corroborative evidence of the abuse?        Yes No
31.) What were the child(ren)’s symptoms? (check all that apply)         Sexual acting out         Depression         Stomach/head/other pain         Dissociation         Overwhelming anger/rage         Nightmares/insomnia/sleep disorders         Fears/phobias:         Eating disorders         Regression (bedwetting/leak feces/thumb sucking)         Constipation/diarrhea         Learning disability         Attention deficit         Suicide attempt         Other:
32.) Did the child(ren) receive Victim of Crime funding for therapy       related to the crime? Yes No
EX-SPOUSE/PARTNER HISTORY
33.) Prior to the separation, did your ex-spouse/partner receive any of the         following labels by mental health professionals? (mark all that apply)         Schizophrenia         Bi-polar disorder         Borderline personality         Depression         Anxiety         Post Traumatic Stress Disorder         Other:
34.) Does s/he have a history of alcohol and/or drug use?         Yes No
35.) If so, is s/he clean and sober?        Yes No     36.) Length of time clean and sober:
37.) Does s/he have a criminal history?        Yes No
38.) If so, what was s/he…        Arrested for?: 39.) Convicted of?:        Description:
PROTECTIVE PARENT HISTORY
40.) Prior to the separation, did you receive any of the         following labels by mental health professionals? (mark all that apply)         Schizophrenia         Bi-polar disorder         Borderline personality         Depression         Anxiety         Post Traumatic Stress Disorder         Other:
41.) Do you have a history of alcohol and/or drug use?         Yes No
42.) If so, are you clean and sober?        Yes No     43.) Length of time clean and sober:
44.) Do you have a criminal history?        Yes No
45.) If so, what were you…        Arrested for? 46.) Convicted of?        Description:
ADVISE
47.) Did anyone ever advise or insist that you not mention domestic         violence or child abuse in family law court?        Yes No
48.) If so, who advised you?         Attorney         Mediator         Advocate         Court personnel         Other:
49.) Did your attorney ever tell you that pursuing court action against        your ex-spouse/partner could negatively affect your case?        Yes No
CHILD CUSTODY
50.) Was custody changed to the other parent over your objection, by        an emergency court order, or without your court presence?        Yes No
51.) Was unsupervised contact given to the identified offender despite        evidence of violence or abuse?        Yes No
52.) Was unsupervised contact given to the identified alcoholic/drug         abuser without drug testing?        Yes No N/A
53.) Was custody changed after you raised any of the following issues?        (Mark all that apply)         Violence         Child abuse         Substance abuse         Criminal conduct         Violations of court order         Move-away         Spousal support         Child support
54.) Were judicial findings made stating that you were a danger to your        child(ren) or that you were an unfit parent?        Yes No
55.) Were you ever placed on supervised visitation?        Yes No     56.) If so, length of time:
57.) Were you restricted from having any contact with your child(ren)?        Yes No     58.) If so, length of time:
59.) Do you believe the other parent attempted to gain increased custody        to avoid paying child support?        Yes No
60.) Was financial discovery conducted in your case?        Yes No
61.) Did you give up assets to keep custody?        Yes No
COURT MEDIATION
62.) Did you participate in court-connected mediation regarding custody?        Yes No
63.) If so, was mediation:         Voluntary         Court ordered         Coerced by threats
64.) Were you required to meet face-to-face with an ex-spouse/partner        who perpetrated violence and/or threats of harm?        Yes No
65.) Did you lose any custody rights or contact with your children as a        result of recommendations by a mediator?        Yes No
EVALUATIONS
66.) Did you participate in court connected evaluations regarding        custody?        Yes No
67.) If so, who was evaluated?:         Mother         Father         Child(ren)         Others:
68.) Who selected the evaluator?:         Mother         Father         Court         Others:
69.) Who paid for the evaluator?:         Mother         Father         Court         Others:         
70.) Total amount paid for custody evaluation:
71.) Did you lose any custody rights or contact with your children as a         result of recommendations by the evaluator?        Yes No
CHILD’S ATTORNEY
72.) Did your child(ren) have an attorney/guardian?        Yes No
73.) If so, was he/she court appointed?:        Yes No
74.) Who selected the child(ren)’s attorney?:         Mother         Father         Court         Others:
75.) Who paid for the child(ren)’s attorney?:         Mother         Father         Court         Others:
76.) Total amount paid for child attorney:
77.) Did this attorney aggressively advocate for the safety of your         child(ren)?        Yes No
SYSTEM SUPPORT
78.) Was the other parent ever Arrested and/or Prosecuted        for spousal or child abuse?        Yes No
79.) Was Child Protective Services ever contacted to intervene in your        case?        Yes No
80.) If so, did they protect your child?        Yes No
EVIDENCE
81.) Did any court related professional ignore, minimize, or refute        evidence of abuse in your case?        Yes No
82.) If so, who?         Mediator         Evaluator         Attorney for minor         Judge         Other:
83.) Did any court related professional label you with any of the        following?         Parent Alienation Syndrome         Alienator         Folie a duex         Munchhausen’s Syndrome by Proxy         Delusional         Schizophrenia         Bi-polar disorder         Borderline personality         Depression         Anxiety         Post traumatic stress disorder         Other rare/unscientific label:
84.) In your case, was Richard Gardener, MD.:         An expert witness         A consultant         Quoted         Other:
PROCESS
85.) Do you believe you were discriminated against for your        attempts to protect yourself and/or your child(ren)?        Yes No
86.) If so, do you believe this occurred due to:         Unethics among court-related professionals         Unethics between ex-spouse/partner & court-related professionals         Financial/social status of your ex-spouse/partner         Gender bias         Other:
87.) Were evaluator or mediator recommendations ever provided to the        court less than 10 days before a hearing?        Yes No
88.) Were you prevented from seeing evaluations or reports that resulted        in custody decisions?:        Yes No
89.) Were you ever denied the ability to adequately present your case        (unable to present/examine witnesses, etc.)?:        Yes No
90.) Were hearings resulting in custody decisions held without your        knowledge or ability to be present (ex parte)?:        Yes No
91.) Were hearings regarding custody and visitation ever conducted        without a court reporter present?:        Yes No
92.) Were you ever threatened that talking publicly could result in        damage to your case?:        Yes No
93.) Were court transcripts complete and accurate?:        Yes No
94.) Were court transcripts denied or delayed?        Yes No
95.) If so, how long were the transcripts denied?
96.) Have you ever been incarcerated in a jail or mental health        facility due to the family law case?:        Yes No
CURRENT CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT
97.) What best describes your children’s current custody         arrangement? (mark all that apply)         Primary with protective parent, supervised with perpetrator         Primary with protective parent, UNsupervised with perpetrator         Joint custody         Full custody with perpetrator parent         Supervised visitation with protective parent         No contact with protective parent         Other:
98.) Are you able to protect your child(ren)?         Yes No
99.) Do you believe your child(ren) are still being abused?         Yes No
100.) Did your child(ren) continue to report abuse after custody was        changed to the identified abuser?:        Yes No
101.) Did you stop reporting suspected child abuse for fear your contact        with your child(ren) will be terminated?:        Yes No
Do you give us permission to contact you for further information?        Yes No
Original web site & graphic design by: (Please visit web designer’s site by clicking text above)
Home | Welcome | Mission | Intro | Warning | Advice | Info | Research Data | Overview | Stories History | Events | Conference | Protests | Donations | Membership | Messages | Links | Survey | Contact

Corrupt Multnomah County Judge Paula J. Kurshner


Corrupt Multnomah County Judge Paula J. Kurshner

Judge Paula J. Kurshner

Judge Paula J. Kurshner, Multnomah County Family Court in Oregon

 

Thursday, May 30, 2013

Corruption in the Courtroom

I am going to tell you a story of arrogance, bullying, bias and self-serving agendas. And for a change it is not about big business, banks or political candidates.   It is far worse than any of those things. And the saddest part is that it involves people charged with protecting the best interests of children. I am talking about judges and custody evaluators in the family court system. Now many people tell a story “changing names to protect the innocent”. Well there is no innocence in this story. That is except for the belief in justice and its ability to prevail in spite of socio economic status.

 

Maybe I am naïve but I want to believe in the idea that in our self-proclaimed “greatest country in the world” we wouldn’t have to worry about the “haves” getting the benefit of the doubt and the “have-nots” being bullied into submission in our court system. Unfortunately that is exactly what is going on in Multnomah County and I will not protect the names of anyone who believes that they have the right to destroy families based on a personal whim, vendetta or personality conflict with the people involved.

 

This isn’t the Wild West and it surely isn’t some third world country with an evil dictator, yet no one is held accountable anymore. Have we become so complacent that we believe that we do not have the right or duty to hold people accountable for the decisions they make, especially those that are in “public service”? Interesting that as an educator no one seems to hesitate to tell me what I need to do better. Last time I checked the duty of the judicial system is to remain impartial and avoid becoming self-serving. Someone needs to let Multnomah County Judge Paula J. Kurshner and custody evaluator Lori A. Bonnevier know that they are not above accountability. The way these two conduct themselves is a travesty.

 

Why are we so quick as a society to reach out to places around the globe in need and yet turn a blind eye to the injustice right here in our own backyards? In a country that preaches about rights for all, those who question these two are met with hostility and threats. Bonnevier is blatant about choosing sides before completing an evaluation and from my understanding that is usually whichever side is paying her fee. Little hint Ms. Bonnevier- usually the person who needs to enlist you and pay you doesn’t have custody for a reason. This isn’t the “good ole boy’s club” and yet scratching each other’s back seems common place for these people.

 

That fact that I personally know two people who have had negative experiences with Bonnevier and neither of which have any knowledge of each other is a red flag. When both have told me independently that she has accused them of being angry and difficult to work with (among more appalling things) and both happen to be strong mothers who will not cower to pressure, I have to wonder what self inadequacies are haunting her.

 

In a recent case that was tried by Kurshner, one side was allowed to introduce evidence based on hearsay of a five year old. Yet when the mother intended to call the twelve year-old brother of the child to refute accusations Judge Kurshner told her that if she insisted on putting her child on the stand that it would reflect negatively on her. Yet Kurshner who was opposed to putting a child in the witness chair would not talk to the child in chambers one on one. What is her agenda? How is it just to allow one child’s words to be used and another’s not even to be heard? I am appalled that this woman would even be allowed to rule on a traffic ticket, let alone decide the fate of a family. She shouldn’t be judging a chili competition and she is appointed to sit in family court. I wish that was the worst thing she had done and sadly it might not make the top five idiocies of this story.

 

The custody evaluator on this case was none other than Lori Bonnevier. When the mother asked for a new evaluator to be assigned the judge refused. After the mother filed a complaint with board for bias on her part Bonnevier actually recused herself for in her own words a “conflict of interest” and somehow still managed to testify in the trial. Bonnevier was even so arrogant as to state that mother had a mental illness. A statement which had no foundation and for which she had about as much authority to make as I have to perform a heart surgery. When questioned about the credential of Bonnevier to make such a statement, Kurshner replied that she was quite aware of Bonnevier’s credentials and allowed her to continue. She went on to say that the mother lived in a home of chaotic disorganization. Which by the way she had never set foot in. The arrogance of both these women to not even try to hide their inability to remain impartial is one of the most sickening things I have ever seen.

 

In the end a good person and great mother had her kids removed from her custody without one shred of evidence that the children were in danger from anything. As I watched a ten-year old boy and his twelve-year old brother forced in tears to leave with a father they didn’t want to be with, searching for answers to the question “why”, I couldn’t help but wonder where was Judge Kurshner? Why wasn’t she required to watch the result of her decision? Why wasn’t she being held accountable?

 

As I search for my own answers to these questions I can’t help but wonder what Kurshner’s agenda is. Is she out to prove that she will not rule in favor of mothers? Does she just hate them? I can’t help but think of the children who are left in situations they shouldn’t be in for lack of evidence, yet this Judge based on no substantial evidence of any kind removes children from the care of a loving and compassionate mother who puts nothing before the welfare of her children.

 

Webster’s defines corruption as…

  1. impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle
  2. a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct

 

Take your pick of either, but both describe Judge Paula J. Kurshner and custody evaluator Lori A. Bonnevier. It is time to take a stand against abuse of power by those we trust with protecting us.

Posted by Justice for our children at 8:47 PM

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

12 comments:

    1. b06b5234-dd5f-11e2-990a-000bcdcb2996June 24, 2013 at 11:23 PMReply
    2. I’ve had a similar experience, can you please e-mail me at kcampbell12k@excite.com and we can talk further
    3. Kim MosesJuly 24, 2013 at 1:37 AMReply
    4. Oh my she was the judge that gave my children over to there father that was abusive to me in front of my children and while I was pregnant they have been gone since October 31st my five and 8 year old . She said the father had to repair my children from damage that I have caused them . Mind you I have never been to jail nore been on drugs hold a job and a home .I see my children once a week and every other weekend and 4 weeks out of the summer no phone calls and my children plead to me to that they want to come home . He has no job has not worked in 6 years almost lives in his moms basement criminal background and so much more he was acquitted for domestic violence please email me kimmietyrrell@gmail.com I can tell u my story . Something has got to be done
    5. VikingGailMarch 8, 2014 at 2:22 PMReply
    6. Most of the judges are bullies and so are the lawyers and evaluators. They always rule against the good guys. They use the guardianship program to steal property from the elderly and won’t let their families visit. Funny she said that about mental illness-she’s talking about herself. See bullyonline. You might be able to get her removed for that.
    7. angkillamMarch 8, 2014 at 5:59 PMReply
    8. I know exactly what you are talking about, my life was destroyed by Judge Kurshner. I cant even began to express the pain, heart ache and loss she put my family and I through. She took all faith I once had in our family court system away from me. She denied me of my constitutional right among plenty of other things

Replies

  • HeatherRSeptember 4, 2014 at 1:13 PM
  • Did you use any resources to bring this to light? I have a similar story and am desperate to shed light on her and expose the corruption and unjust rulings she imposes on innocent people

Reply

    1. angkillamMarch 8, 2014 at 6:02 PMReply
    2. http://www.thelaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14225
    3. Mothers Against Biased Custody EvaluatorsMarch 25, 2014 at 2:32 PMReply
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.
    5. YouknowbetterApril 13, 2014 at 12:09 PMReply
    6. I have been in Kurshner’s courtroom. All she wants are quick, easy dockets. She doesn’t care if the kid is going to a home where there is no violence or abuse. She wants to slam the gavel down and compliment both parties for not fighting in court. My grandchild was given to the wrong parent, and suffered horrible abuse. Janice Garceau, head of the custody evaluators, is a huge mistake. She doesn’t care about the safety of children. The system is broken. My grandchild suffered abuse after abuse with a drug addict parent until finally set free. But it took years, and none of us know if the counseling will ever be fully freeing from the pain inflicted. Kurshner, the attorney’s who care more about billable hours than a child’s safety, it’s a joke. I used to believe the truth would set a person free…..but not in front of Kurshner, not in front of Janice Garceau, and certainly not in Multnomah County court system.

Replies

  • HeatherRSeptember 4, 2014 at 1:11 PM
  • I understand exactly what your saying. She just made an unfair judgement against me yesterday it which appeared she was having a bad day and didn’t even care that there’s an open investigation on abuse allegations against my ex husband from my son she sent him back to live with him. I’m desperate I need help. My son is in danger and I’m stuck with this judge. Do have any insight for me?

Reply

    1. Mikee BridgesMay 5, 2014 at 12:42 PMReply
    2. I also have had Kurshner. Absolutely awful experience. I am a full custody father of two but that was only because I figured out how to do it out of court. Kurshner was horrible. Didnt listen, cut me off, etc, etc etc. Just a nightmare.

Replies

 

Motherless Child Project


Battered Mothers - A Human Rights Issue

Fathers? Rights Movement successful using the courts custody issues exact revenge on mothers not only depriving children of their mother but using them as a weapon against her

Source: americanmotherspoliticalparty.org

View original post

Please Help Save Kendall (Short Video)


donnellyjustice

When you are finished watching this video, please visit: www.savekendall.com

View original post

CALIFORNIA COALITION EXPANDS FAMILY COURT ATTACK TO EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS


California Coalition Expands Family Court Attack to Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Briefing Filed Today

by ccfceditor

March 6, 2015–San Diego, CA and St. Paul, MN–California Coalition for Families and Children, PBC today announces strategic legal partnership with  attorney Michelle MacDonald, MacDonald Law Firm, LLC, www.FamilyCourt.com, www.Facebook.com\FamilyCourt to strengthen the family law reform movement within federal courts in the Eighth Circuit and Minnesota family courts.  In a brief filed today with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Ms. MacDonald—co-founder of Family Innocence, a nonprofit dedicated to keeping families out of court: resolving conflicts and injustices peacefully  (www.FamilyInnocence.com)—advances groundbreaking arguments with assistance of California Coalition.

“We’re honored to stand with Ms. MacDonald and FamilyCourt.com to engage the beast of Family Courts, and look forward to collaborating further in advancing the Grazzini-Rucki case through the federal courts” says Colbern Stuart, President of California Coalition.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/257912195/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true

The Grazzini-Rucki brief expands on the approach taken by California Coalition in its ongoing appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Excerpts from the brief prepared jointly by MacDonald Law Firm, LLC, Michelle MacDonald, California Coalition, and Colbern Stuart:

 

INTRODUCTION

If aura there be, it is hardly protected by exonerating from
liability such lawless conduct as took place here
[1]
Nineteenth and twentieth century American judges have overstepped constitutional restriction to usurp powers reserved to the legislature and written for themselves an immunity far greater even than that of an English judge, or even a King, at common law.[2]  No court has ever denied that absolute immunity inflicts a “monstrous” injustice on wronged litigants, and taxes the credibility and integrity of judicial institutions.  Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F. 2d 579, 581 (2nd Cir. 1949); Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 521 (1978).  It has been justified as a necessary evil to protect the “ardor” of judges and prosecutors.  Id.  While one might reasonably have concluded that our efforts to assure “justice is done”[3] would have been better-directed toward inculcating ardor through discipline and integrity than by “expanding” immunity, the issue is moot.
Unlike the 1871 era of federal procedure in which a judge could be forced to stand trial on mere “ascription” of culpable intent to an accused act,[4] the reasonable concern is today resolved at the pleading stage.  Modernly, like all litigants a judge is protected by procedural barriers provided in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) and Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) which protect against a mere “ascription” of malice.  These are bolstered by the plausibility test provided in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 thereafter.  The purposes of immunity—to protect efficient process—is today accomplished at the pleading stage.
A Judge’s invocation of the doctrine of judicial immunity to preserve judicial efficiency has effectively denied citizens remedy—a fundamentalright—for judicial injury.
Fundamental  rights such as of familial association are destroyed by the nod of a head. In error, Pierson and Sparkman have deprived scores of Americans remedy for criminalwrongdoingPierson and Sparkman’s despotism must end today.

 

The Outrages Committed Against the Grazzini-Rucki Family and Their Attorney

Ms. MacDonald represents Ms. Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and her children, who have been devastated by Minnesota family courts.  The lawsuit describes the outrages committed by Minnesota Family Court Judge David Knutson against the Grazzini-Rucki family and their attorney Ms. MacDonald.  Ms. Grazzini-Rucki’s encounters with family courts began in 2011 when she sought and obtained a divorce, seeking orders of protection for her and her children.  Over the ensuing years, successive abusive rulings by the Minnesota Family Court rendered Grazzini-Rucki and her family homeless and bankrupt.

Judge Knutson’s illegal rulings included kicking the entire family out of their own home and separating the children from both parents, with no contact orders.  Last September, after a “listening session” conducted by Judge Knutson involving the Grazzini-Rucki children, two of Grazzini-Rucki’s children became so distressed that they fled from the homes into which they had been placed.  Teenagers Gianna and Samantha Rucki  have been missing since April 19, 2013. www.Missingkids.com.   In what can only be described as a bizarre absurdity, Judge Knutson insisted on conducting a “child custody “ trial after the children went missing.

Even more outrageous, after Ms. MacDonald advised Judge Knutson that the trial was improper, Judge Knutson caused Ms. MacDonald to be placed  in handcuffs shackled to a belt around her waist, sat in a wheel chair, and forced to finish trial to finish the “custody” trial without eyeglasses, pen, paper, or files.  While Ms. MacDonald was being arrested, courtroom bailiffs told Ms. Grazzini-Rucki that MacDonald would be retained in custody and would not be returning to the courtroom.  Ms. Grazzini-Rucki therefore left the courthouse.  When MacDonald was returned to the courtroom in shackles, Grazzini-Rucki had already left—yet Judge Knutson insisted on completing the trial without Ms. Grazzini-Rucki.  The events were captures on security video.  From the brief:

Judge Knutson sought, and the district court granted, dismissal of all claims as barred by absolute judicial immunity, finding every act accused in the Amended Complaint to be a judicial act within Judge Knutson’s jurisdiction.  Order at 21.  The many non-judicial acts of which Judge Knutson was accused in the Amended Complaint—but not analyzed in the district court’s sweeping immunity holding—include:
  • Searching and seizing person and property of Grazzini-Rucki and her children without probable cause or a warrant, including that she abandon her children;
  • Circumventing the Minnesota Court Information system regarding various Dakota County matters involving the litigants;
  • Causing state court administrators to assign “all future hearings” in various matters involving Grazzini-Rucki to Judge Knutson;
  • Illegally usurping jurisdiction over several existing matters involving Grazzini-Rucki, including the State of Minnesota against David Rucki, and third parties, and making rulings in those matters without notice to Grazzini-Rucki;
  • Illegally ordering Ms. Grazzini-Rucki’s children into “therapy”;
  • Illegally intercepting and sealing a recorded transcript Ms. Grazzini-Rucki was entitled to receive and view;
  • Ordering both parents to have no contact with their own children whatsoever;
  • Ordering Grazzini-Rucki to refrain from participation in her own family’s association activities;
  • Ordering Grazzini-Rucki to be separated from her children and have no contact with them at their schools, or through third parties;
  • Conducting a “listening” psychotherapy session between Judge Knutson, Dr. Gilbertson, and the Grazzini-Rucki’s children at which Judge Knutson was alleged to have coerced, intimidated, and threatened the Grazzini-Rucki children, contributing the children’s decision to run away from their home just days later;
  • Insisting that Grazzini-Rucki’s counsel try Grazzini-Rucki’s case while in handcuffs shackled to a waist belt, unable to rise from a wheelchair, without Grazzini-Rucki present, without Ms. MacDonald’s files, and without glasses, pen, or papers, seized by courtroom deputies;
  • Retaliating against Grazzini-Rucki’s counsel by the foregoing after Grazzini-Rucki’s counsel informed Judge Knutson that this action was pending against him, and ignoring the glaring conflict of interest.
Though this brief focuses primarily on the administrative assignment and “listening” therapy session, Appellant does not waive her assertion that none of the above functions, and those listed in the Amended Complaint warrant immunity.  The district court’s analysis of these many claims was skeletal yet sweeping, finding Judge Knutson immune for “actions taken in his capacity as a state court judge”, relying primarily on Stump v. Sparkman and Pierson v. Ray.  Order p. 32.  In response to Appellee Knutson’s Brief, and analyzed below, this broad “judicial capacity” scope and sweeping “analysis” was error.

 

 

Judges Bear the Burden of Proof on Immunity

Grazzini-Rucki asserted many of the challenges to judicial immunity as did California Coalition in its briefing before the Ninth Circuit.  California Coalition was pleased to join Grazzin-Rucki family in asserting those challenges in the Eight Circuit.  From the brief:

Judge Knutson Bears the Burden of Proving Immunity
Judge Knutson repeatedly asserts that Grazzini-Rucki “failed to raise” immunity issues in the district court.  See, e.g., Knutson Brf. p. 31, 34.  This is an improper attempt to shift onto plaintiff-appellant the burden of proving the affirmative defense of immunity, which rests solely with the party asserting it.  Fed.R. Civ.P. 8(c)(1);  Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 498 (1991) (“An official seeking such immunity, however, must at the outset show that a “counterpart to the privilege he asserts” was recognized at common law in 1871, for “[w]here we have found that a tradition of absolute immunity did not exist as of 1871, we have refused to grant such immunity under § 1983.”).
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that an official claiming an affirmative defense of immunity bears the burden to prove that 1871 common law immunized the function of each act accused in the complaint.  See, e.g., Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 339-340 (1986) (“Our initial inquiry is whether an official claiming immunity under § 1983 can point to a common-law counterpart to the privilege he asserts.”); The Court “has for that reason been quite sparing in recognizing absolute immunity for state actors.”  Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 269 (1993).
 The “function” analysis considers only historical fact.  Malley at 342 (“We emphasize that our role is to interpret the intent of Congress in enacting § 1983, not to make a freewheeling policy choice, and that we are guided in interpreting Congress’ intent by the common-law tradition.”); Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 920 (1984) (“Section 1983 immunities are ‘predicated upon a considered inquiry into the immunity historically accorded the relevant official at common law and the interests behind it.’”).
Courts investigating the intent of the 1871 42nd Congress have examined accounts of 1871 social and legal systems from Nineteenth Century case law, legal treatises, and the congressional record.  The Supreme Court undertook this historical analysis most recently in Rehberg v. Paulk,, 132 S.Ct. 1497 (2012), examining nineteenth century cases to determine that the function accused—testimony of a grand jury witness—enjoyed immunity at common law.  Id. at 1503-07.[5]
An officer’s failure to prove up a common law analog is dispositive of the issue regardless of countervailing policy considerations. Rehberg at 1502-03 (“We do not simply make our own judgment about the need for immunity. We have made it clear that it is not our role ‘to make a freewheeling policy choice,’ and that we do not have a license to create immunities based solely on our view of sound policy.”).  Granting an immunity absent this historical analysis is error.  Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 249-50 (1974) (“These cases, in their present posture, present no occasion for a definitive exploration of the scope of immunity available to state executive officials.”). 
Neither the District Court Nor Judge Knutson Have Analyzed Historical Foundations for an Immunity of Accused Function
Judge Knutson proffered, and the district court undertook, no historical analysis of whether any of the two dozen functions accused in the Amended Complaint were functions that enjoyed judicial immunity at common law in 1871.  The district court’s sweeping Order proclaimed that Judge Knutson’s “case management, his signing of orders, the substance of his orders, and the trial proceeding” were all taken in a “judicial capacity.”  Order p 33.  The district court reached this conclusion finding only that (1) “Judge Knutson has not interacted with Plaintiff outside of his courtroom or his judicial chambers” and (2) “the underlying family law case was within [his] jurisdictional authority.  Order p. 33.  On these purported findings, the district court found Judge Knutson acted in a “judicial capacity” and was thus immune.  Id.
Analyzed below, this broad-brush “judicial capacity” scope and summary analysis fails to “affirmatively state” the defense, which was exclusively Judge Knutson’s burden.  Fed.R. Civ.P. 8(c); Rehberg, supra.
The District Court Extended Immunity Based On Factors Not Relevant to Judicial Immunity
The district judge applied a “judicial capacity” scope of immunity that was far broader than that provided in controlling Supreme Court authority.  Immunity does not depend on the act or actor, but on the nature of the accused act.  Sparkman at 362.  Immunity may exist only if the accused act is both (1) “judicial in nature” and (2) within statutory subject matter jurisdiction.  Id.  The first “Judicial in nature” factor in turn depends on (a) “the nature of the act itself, i.e., whether it is a function normally performed by a judge,” and (b) “the expectations of the parties, i.e., whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity.”  Id.  Not all official or authorized acts of a judge are “judicial acts”—judges also perform administrative, ministerial, or other types of acts that are not entitled to judicial immunity.  See, e.g., Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 229 (1988) (firing court employees could be performed by administrator and thus not “judicial”).
The test to distinguish between “judicial” and other types of acts is to analyze whether the act can only be performed by a judge.  See Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 340 (1879) (selection of jurors could be performed by administrator, thus not “judicial”); Forrester, supra; Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429, 435 (1993) (court reporters “part of judicial function” yet not absolutely immune).  Absolute immunity is justified because judicial acts—and only judicial acts—are subject to standardized, scrutinized proceedings, restrained by principles of law, and are subject to appellate review.  Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 516 (1978); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 564 n. 4 (1967).  Because judicial acts are subject to such safeguards, the Supreme Court has justified relieving the actors from liability for civil money damages.  Id.

 

Administrative Behaviors of a Judge in Assigning Cases Are Not Immune

Judge Knutson also asserted that his administrative or ministerial behaviors in Family Court case assignments was an immune “judicial act” simply because he was a judge.  Grazzini-Rucki and California Coalition analyzed abundant law demonstrating that even though an administrative act is authorized or performed by a judge, the administrative act is not converted into a judicial act.  From the brief:

Judge Knutson’s Administrative Behavior in Assigning Himself to Certain Cases is Not Immune

The district court’s high-level “analysis” that Judge Knutson’s “case management” and “trial proceedings” extended immunity far beyond Sparkman’s scope of immunity to include behaviors which are clearly not judicial acts.  As one example, Judge Knutson’s “case management” behaviors in assigning all Grazzini-Rucki cases, including all future cases with third parties, and those with the State of Minnesota,  to himself is clearly an administrative act because it cannot be reviewed on appeal, is not subject to law, is conducted in private before parties are even aware of a judge, and may be performed by administrators as well as judges.
     The cases cited by Judge Knutson support Appellant’s conclusion.  Martinez v. Winner, 800 F.2d 230, 231 (10th Cir. 1986)[6] relied on Rheuark v. Shaw, 628 F.2d 297, 305 (5th Cir. 1980) (extending absolute immunity for “jurisdictional authority to appoint and supervise court reporters.”).  In both cases the “jurisdictional authority” was a statutory grant of administrative authority—not jurisdiction.[7]  Parent v. New York, 786 F. Supp. 2d 516, 532 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) also drew authority from Matinez’s (moot) holding.  “The assignment of cases and issuance of consolidation orders are judicial functions normally performed by, and statutorily reserved to, Judge Lippman. See [statute] giving Chief Judge and Chief Administrator the authority to assign judges to judicial terms and parts. . . .”  Parent at 532 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
Parent’s holding is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s judicial act jurisprudence.  The fact that the “Chief Administrator” function happened to be performed by a judge does not convert the “administrator” function to a judicial one—nothing in the New York statute prohibits a non-judge from undertaking the role of “chief administrator”, meaning that, like juror selection, it is an act that may be performed by a non-judge, and thus not a judicial act.  See Ex Parte Virginia, supra.  A “Chief Administrator’s” assignment process is ministerial—the only “function” is to follow the assignment procedure.  Failure to abide the ministerial process is not an appealable event.  A judge or administrator is not applying law to facts.  The process is not highly scrutinized.  As such, Parent reached its holding on analysis inconstant with controlling Supreme Court authority, and is error.
Similarly, in Zahl v. Kosovsky, No. 08 CIV. 8308 LTS THK, 2011 WL 779784 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2011) the district court considered a claim for immunity of a judge who allegedly “manipulated the assignment system to take control of Plaintiff’s case . . . .”   According to the district court in Zahl, the plaintiff “cite[ed] no relevant authority in support of his conclusory assertions that such actions vitiated Justice Diamond’s jurisdiction to handle his case, and the Court has found none.”  Id. at *9.  The Zahl plaintiff apparently failed to identify any of the abundant relevant authorities including Ex Parte Virginia, Forrester, and Antoine, supra, which provide means to distinguish non-appealable acts of administrators from appealable acts only judges may perform.  Moreover, like the district court and Judge Knutson, the Zahl court improperly placed the burden of proving immunity on the Plaintiff rather than the official.  Malley at 339.
Zahl also erroneously relied on language in Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) instructing courts to construe subject matter jurisdiction (the second element of Sparkman’s two-element immunity test) broadly.  Zahl at *9. Sparkman’s instruction does not apply to the first “judicial act” element.  Sparkman at 362.  As above, the Supreme Court has been “quite sparing” in extending immunity under the judicial act element of the test.  Buckley at 269.  Zahl also focused analysis on failure to recuse when faced with motion identifying conflict of interest.  Id.  Ruling on a motion is an act which only a judge “normally” performs, and thus falls within Sparkman’s “judicial act” scope.
Bracci v. Becker, No. 1:11-CV-1473 MAD/RFT, 2013 WL 123810, at *6 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2013) aff’d, 568 F. App’x 13 (2d Cir. 2014) is derived from Martinez, Parent, and Zahl and is error for the same reasons.  Further, in Bracci the plaintiff’s accused Judge Mulvey’s (a “chief administrative judge”) failure to remove Judge Becker (the trial judge) form the case, making Bracci more of a recusal case.  Like Zahl, recusal requires ruling on a motion—a judicial act.
In both cases the courts found what they (incorrectly) identified as “jurisdiction” based on statutes authorizing judges—as well as non-judge administrators—to assign cases.  Statutory empowerment goes to Sparkman’s second “within the jurisdiction” element of the immunity test—but is insufficient to satisfy the first, “judicial act” element.  Sparkman, supra.[8]  Judge Knutson repeats the error.  Knutson Brf. at 29-30 (citations to Billingsley and Duty).
Judge Knutson’s reliance on Hardy v. Nw. Mem’l Hosp., No. 93 C 1348, 1993 WL 85750, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 1993) is misplaced.  Hardy erroneously analyzed judicial acts under the test for prosecutorial immunity.  Hardy cited Imbler v. Pachtman, applying the “intimately related with the judicial phase of the criminal process” standard.  Id. at *2.  Hardy failed to cite or analyze under judicial immunity precedents including Sparkman, Pierson, Bradley, or Randall.  Judges do not perform prosecutorial function, and thus the immunity of a judge is lost if she performs such functions.   Lopez v. Vanderwater, 620 F.2d 1229, 1236 (7th Cir. 1980) (finding judge performing functions of a prosecutor not entitled to either judicial or prosecutorial immunity).
Finally, none of the authority relied on by Judge Knutson analyzed the critical test—whether the function of assigning cases was a judicial act at 1871 common law.  Absent such analysis, the authority is error.  Rehberg, supra.

 

A Judge Working with a Psychologist in Child Custody Proceedings Is Not Performing a “Judicial Act” and is Thus Not Immune

Judge Knutson followed the modern trend of Family Court judges to wander far afield from traditional judicial functions—in his case performing what he called a “listening session” to “further” the children’s psychotherapy.  It was because of Judge Knutson’s harsh commands at the “listening session” that the Grazzini-Rucki children ran away.  California Coalition assisted Ms. MacDonald in formulating arguments that disproved Judge Knutson’s claim to immunity for working with a psychologist in the custody setting.  From the brief:

Judge Knutson’s “Listening” Psychotherapy Session with the Grazzini-Rucki Children is Not a Judicial Act

 Judge Knutson concedes he conducted a “listening session” with the five Grazzini-Rucki children “for the sole purpose” of facilitating psychotherapy of the children —complying with a “request from a court-appointed therapist for a structured family meeting.”[9]  During this psychotherapy session Judge Knutson harshly reprimanded and the children.  Days later two of them ran away from their home and have not been seen since.[10]
Following Rehberg, the district court should have analyzed whether the function of psychotherapy performed at the “listening session” was an immune function at 1871 common law.  Rehberg at 1503. The district court’s failure conduct this historical inquiry is error sufficient to reverse.  Scheuer at 249-50 (1974).
If the district court had conducted appropriate inquiry, it would find no tradition for psychotherapy function at 1871 common law.  Given that psychotherapy is a function developed in the twentieth century, and is only legally performed by licensed psychologists,[11] it would seem unlikely that Judge Knutson could identify an 1871 common law immunity for his psychotherapy behavior.
Other courts considering the question have found no immunity for psychologists (Jensen v. Lane Cnty., 222 F.3d 570, 577 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding no “firmly rooted tradition” of immunity for functions performed by private psychiatrists employed by prison)).  See also Hoffman v. Harris, 511 U.S. 1060 (1994) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of cert.) (“The courts that have accorded absolute immunity to social workers appear to have overlooked the necessary historical inquiry; none has seriously considered whether social workers enjoyed absolute immunity for their official duties in 1871. If they did not, absolute immunity is unavailable to social workers under § 1983.  This all assumes, of course, that “social workers” (at least as we now understand the term) even existed in 1871. If that assumption is false, the argument for granting absolute immunity becomes (at least) more difficult to maintain.”).
Further, the history of psychologists in the divorce industry demonstrates such functions are late twentieth century innovations.  “Family Courts” are a creation of the 1970s after the 1966 California Report on the Governor’s Commission on the Family.  L. Friedman, Rights of Passage: Divorce Law in Historical Perspective 63 Or. L. Rev. 649, 667 (1984).  The function of “psychologist-as-judge” custody evaluator was unknown to a divorce courtroom until the mid-1990s “as the supply of psychologists continued to increase and stricter third-party payer regimens were imposed for mental health treatment (Gould, 2006). [C]ustody evaluation services generally are neither highly regulated nor institutionalized, but rather may be characterized as a cottage industry (Schepard, 2005).” Robert F. Kelly, Sarah H. Ramsey, Child Custody Evaluations: The Need for Systems-Level Outcome Assessments, 47 Fam. Ct. Rev. 286, 291 (2009).
Finally, it is unlikely that the district court could have identified any function of a family court—including “listening sessions,” “therapy”, “reconciliation,” custody evaluations, or otherwise—existed at 1871 common law because in 1871 no civil judicial tribunal possessed jurisdiction over marriage, divorce, or child custody.  “It is elementary that in the early history of jurisprudence in England the common law courts exercised no jurisdiction over divorce cases, jurisdiction in such matters resting entirely with the ecclesiastical courts of the realm.” Peterson v. Peterson, 24 Haw. 239, 246 (1918).  See also Robert H. Mnookin, Child-Custody Adjudication: Judicial Functions in the Face of Indeterminacy, 39 Law and Contemp. Prob. 226, 234 (1975).

 

 Modern Family Court Jurisdiction Is Inferior; If It Has Immunity It is Extremely Narrow

 Knutson’s Brief speciously asserts that general jurisdiction includes jurisdiction over “family law matters.” [12]Family court jurisdiction is incontrovertibly inferior because it is specific.  Minn. Stat. 518.  Many courts recognize family courts as inferior tribunals.  Family Court “in a dissolution proceeding is a court of limited jurisdiction.”  King v. State Educ. Dep’t, 182 F.3d 162 (2d Cir.1999); People United for Children, Inc. v. City of New York, 108 F. Supp. 2d 275, 286 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (Family Court not a “court of competent jurisdiction” for Rooker-Feldman analysis).
Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 523 (1868) describes the limited scope of immunity for “inferior courts”: Judges exercising limited jurisdiction were immune for acts within the limited jurisdiction, and could be liable for civil damages for acts in excess of their jurisdiction, and for acts done “maliciously or corruptly.”  Randall at 531. [13]  While Judge Knuston bears the burden of demonstrating modern family court functions enjoyed any immunity at 1871 common law, in no case will he achieve an immunity scope greater than an 1871 inferior court; for judicial acts within their jurisdiction not done “maliciously or corruptly.”  Id.
Judge Knutson’s Assertion of Broad Immunity Lacks Authority
Judge Knutson asserts: “Acts and orders related to overseeing a family law case, including orders requiring therapy and efforts to facilitate it, are acts inherently judicial in nature.”  Knutson Brf. p. 35.  His authority does not support this proposition.
Judge Knutson cites Myers v. Morris, 810 F.2d 1437, 1448 (8th Cir. 1987), abrogated by Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (1991).  Myers was the first case in this Circuit to consider the 1976 decision of Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976).  Imbler was the seminal Supreme Court case extending prosecutorial immunity under Section 1983 to acts of “the prosecutor in his role as advocate for the State.”  Id. at 431 n. 33.  The Court recognized that its general description was broad, and could potentially encompass administrative acts as well as prosecutorial acts, yet declined to provide a more precise definition:  “At some point, and with respect to some decisions, the prosecutor no doubt functions as an administrator rather than as an officer of the court. Drawing a proper line between these functions may present difficult questions, but this case does not require us to anticipate them.”  Id.
Myers picked up where Imbler left off, analyzing several acts by Scott County Prosecuting Attorney R. Kathleen Morris which fell within Imbler’s broad range of potentially-immune acts.  Meyers at 1449.  Myers extended a generous scope of immunity to every function of Ms. Morris that plaintiffs accused, including “her role in the initiation of criminal proceedings against them and her handling of evidentiary material.”  Id.  These several functions included investigation, advising police, interviewing children, and advocacy for the state during the criminal proceeding.  Id. at 1446-1452.
Meyers’ limited immunity incorrectly, drawing a line between pre-charging and post-charging phases.  Today post-charging investigative, administrative, administrative, and enforcement functions are not immune.  See, e.g, Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997).  Myers correctly limited prosecutorial immunity to criminal proceedings.  Meyers at 1452.  Myers also recognized that absolute immunity would not extend to enforcement or investigative functions in “approv[ing] or direct[ing] the removal of children from their homes upon the arrest of one or both parents.”  Id. at n. 11.[14]
Judge Knutson claim Myers immunizes “family law judges to work with experts to determine the care provided to children in custody and applying judicial immunity to that work.”  Knutson Brf. at 35.  This is incorrect.  Myers involved a criminal prosecution, not “family law judges.”  Myers at 1452 .  Myers did not involve Minnesota laws regarding “best interests,” nor a judge or psychologist determining “best interests”—but criminal prosecution.  Moreover, Myers expressly recognized that investigative functions such as the “listening session” in which Dr. Gilbertson and Judge Knutson “the session was held for the sole purpose of facilitating therapy…” are not prosecutorial. [15] Myers did not extend immunity to psychotherapy.
Judge Knutson finally claims—citing no authority—that “sealing the transcript of the session” was a judicial act.  The record indicates the opposite—that Judge Knutson was not undertaking the listening session pursuant to any order.  Having no relationship to any judicial act, the transcript—and its sealing—cannot be converted into one.

 

 The District Court’s “Judicial Capacity” Scope Relied on Elements Not Relevant To Judicial Immunity

The district judge’s sweeping analysis of the dozens of acts accused focused on a single fact that Judge Knutsen interacted with Grazinni-Rucki inside of his courtroom.  Order at 33.  Judge Knutson repeats the error.  Knutson Brf. p. 31.
The location of an accused act is not relevant to Sparkman’s two-factor test, which focusses on function regardless of location.  For example, Sparkman favorably cited Gregory v. Thompson, 500 F.2d 59 (9th Cir. 1974), which held that physically evicting a litigant from a courtroom is not an act “of a judicial nature.”  Sparkman at 370, fn. 10.  Justice White also cited a Sixth Circuit decision, Lynch v. Johnson, 420 F.2d 818 (6th Cir. 1970), holding that a county judge who had a plaintiff “forcibly removed” from a “fiscal court” and jailed was not immune.  Id.  See also Harper v. Merckle, 638 F.2d 848, 857 (5th Cir. 1981) (child support enforcement proceeding inside of courtroom and chambers not immune); Mireless v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 13 (1991) (physical assault outside of courtroom held immune).  Location of the act was one of the four-factor “debris” elements from McAlester v. Brown, 469 F.2d 1280 (5th Cir. 1972) which Justice White “cast aside” in distilling Sparkman’s “cogent two-part test.”  Harper at 857.[16]

 

 The District Court’s Reliance on Pierson v. Ray and Stump v. Sparkman Was Error

 Section 1983 Does Not Require Proof of Malicious or Corrupt Intent
The district court cited the seminal judicial immunity case, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), in connection with its holding that Judge Knutson is immune even if he acted “maliciously or corruptly.”  Order at 33.  Appellant did not—and need not—assert that Judge Knutson acted “maliciously or corruptly.”  Appellant asserts merely that he acted to deprive of constitutional rights.   Section 1983 does not require an allegation of specific intent, including malice or corruption, but only general intent to perform the act causing the deprivation of a constitutional right.  Monell at 685; Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 232 (1970).  Malice and corruption were relevant in defeating common law immunities for common law torts.  Section 1983 was enacted to supplement common law tort liability—it turns on a “strict liability” standard, requiring no proof of intent.  IdSee also n. 22, infra (comment of Representative David A. Clark).
Pierson and Sparkman Erroneously Extended Common Law Immunity to Civil Rights Liability
 Pierson and Sparkman stand in error for exceeding the judicial power vested in United States courts under Article III of the United States Constitution.  In deciding Pierson and Sparkman, the Supreme Court construed Section 1983 to find an immunity which is not present on—and entirely inconsistent with—the face of the strict liability statute.   Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 665-94 (1978)  Yet Section 1983 is not a subject for statutory interpretation; clearer language has likely never emerged from Congress.  Id.; see also Monroe at 185-191.
Instead of examining the unambiguous statute, Chief Justice Warren in Pierson instructs us to examine congressional intent, which Chief Justice Warren claims does not indicate an intent to abrogate the common law immunities of a judge.  “The legislative record gives no clear indication that Congress meant to abolish wholesale all common-law immunities . . . .  The immunity of judges for acts within the judicial role is equally well established [as the speech and debate privilege], and we presume that Congress would have specifically so provided had it wished to abolish the doctrine.”  Pierson at 554-555 (1967).
The “presumption” is as worthy as any speculation.  It overlooks the most obvious evidence of congressional intent—the unambiguous language of the statute itself.  Moreover, actual analysis of the congressional record, and history of judicial immunity reveals Chief Justice Warren’s presumption is simply wrong.
Pierson Incorrectly Analyzed Legislative Privilege Rather Than Judicial Immunity
In Pierson Chief Justice Warren “presumed” that “the immunity of judges” was “equally well established” as the legislative privilege.  Remarkably, in presuming, he failed to conduct analysis of the common law of judicial immunity—citing only to Bradley’s (post-Civil Rights Act) holding and Scott v. Stansfield, 3 Law Reports, Exchequer, 220.[17]   Pierson at 554.  Despite having on hand the meticulous historical analysis of nineteenth century common law and the 42nd Congress’ legislative intent provided by Justice Douglas in 1961’s Monroe v. Pape decision, Chief Justice Warren’s 1967 opinion ignored it.
Dissenting, Justice Douglas—the author of Monroe—did draw from his prior historical analysis of common law and the congressional record to the Civil Rights Act, reaching a forceful conclusion: “The Court’s ruling is not justified by the admitted need for a vigorous and independent judiciary, is not commanded by the common-law doctrine of judicial immunity, and does not follow inexorably from our prior decisions.”  Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 559 (1967) (Douglas, J., dissenting).  Similar rich analyses and enlivened opinions are evident in Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 665-94 (1978); Pulliam at 529-544; Sparkman at 368 (Stewart, J., Powell, J., dissenting), Dykes v. Hoseman, 776 F.2d 942, 954 (11th Cir.  1985) (Hatchett, J, dissenting) (“[T]he en banc court holds that judicial immunity is complete, unqualified, and without exception . . .  As the majority concedes, no precedent, Supreme Court or otherwise, requires such a broad definition and application of the judicial immunity doctrine.  [N]o policy considerations justify such a result. . . .  Judges . . . will be able to deal willy nilly with the rights of citizens without having to account for willful unconstitutional actions.”).
Instead of analyzing judicial immunity, Justice Warren adopted analysis of legislative privilege from Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951).  In Tenney Justice Frankfurter considered whether a California legislative committee conducting a contempt proceeding against a man circulating a flyer protesting the committee was immune from an action under Section 1983.  Id. at 377.   The question was whether a common law “speech or debate” privilege protecting lawmaking activity could be extended to a lawmaker’s behavior in conducting the contempt hearing.  Id.
Justice Frankfurter traced the history of English common law preserving legislative speech or debate privilege as derivative of liberty—an extension of the voters’ freedom of speech and conscience.  Id. at 372-73.  Protection of “speech or debate” was necessary to prohibit the English King and his aristocracy from persecuting members of Parliament making laws unfavorable to the then-ruling class.  Justice Frankfurter aligned the English speech liberty with the federal “speech or debate” analog in the United States Constitution at Article I, Sec. 6, cl. 1.[18] Like Chief Justice Warren, Justice Frankfurter presumed—analyzing no legislative history—that the 42nd Congress would not have intended to limit any state’s legislative activity in enacting the 1871 Civil Rights Act because Congress was itself a “staunch advocate of legislative freedom.”  Id. at 376 (emphasis added).
Tenney justified extending the speech or debate liberty to the committee hearing function because legislators are directly-elected and immediately accountable to voters.  Id. at 378.  Tenney also held the narrow immunity was lost if “there was a usurpation of functions exclusively vested in the Judiciary or the Executive.”  Id.
Judicial Immunity is the Opposite of Legislative Privilege—Judges Are Sovereigns Possessing Not “Rights” but Delegated Authority
 Judicial authority and legislative freedom are night and day.  Judges exercise jurisdiction as sovereigns—not liberties from sovereigns.  While judges have all the rights of any citizen qua a citizen, a judge qua judge possesses no rights.  “First and Fourteenth Amendments restrain “only such action as may fairly be said to be that of the States.”  United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 621 (2000).  “[T]he censorial power is in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people.”  New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 282-83 (1964). There is no need for a judge to express opinions, experiences, or desires of her own or those she represents to create law—he/she is given law.  [19]Other than necessary for faithful adjudication, a judge’s “freedom of conscience” is irrelevant to judicial function—relevant “conscience” is given in the form of law that has matured through free debate elsewhere. County Judges do not function as a body, and (should) have no one to “debate.”  The United States and State of Minnesota constitutions do not extend a speech or debate privilege to the judiciary because courts are not empowered to speak or debate.  The function of a judge is to adjudicate—apply the given law to properly-admitted facts.  Judges are not representatives of voters, but independent of electoral will, passion, and accountability. There is no need to protect a judge’s “speech” other than to preserve the judge’s ability to pronounce adjudication—merely a “substantial state interest”[20] that must yield to Minnesota’s “fundamental law”—citizen rights such as remedy,[21] due process, equal protection, speech, and association.  See Theide v. Town of Scandia Valley, 217 Minn. 218, 226-27, 14 NW 2d 400, 406 (1944) (forcibly removing woman and children from their home in sub-zero weather by the town sheriff and forced to return to their “legal settlement” in another town for the purpose of obtaining poor relief violated “fundamental law”[22] despite consistency with state law.).  Minnesota courts may not construe statutes contrary to citizen rights under the “fundamental law.”  See T. Flemming, J. Norby, The Minnesota Bill of Rights: Wrapt in the Old Miasmal Mist, 7 Hamline L.Rev. 194 (1984).
 The long history of preservation of legislative speech and debate—a fundamental liberty—is entirely absent from the history of judicial immunity.  See Monell at 665-94; Pierson (Douglas, J. dissenting); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 243 (1974) (“Indeed, as the Court also indicated in Monroe v. Pape, supra, the legislative history indicates that there is no absolute immunity”); Pulliam at 540 (1984) (“every Member of Congress who spoke to the issue assumed that judges would be liable under § 1983”).  There being no “judicial speech” liberty in 1871, there is no reason to “presume” that the 1871 Congress would have seen need to expressly abrogate a tradition that has never existed.
Far from tradition, the “hoary doctrine of judicial immunity”[23] is expropriation.  Tenney’s “presumption” was a modest stretch of liberty over the border with sovereignty to protect the functions of elected representatives of the people.  Pierson’s adoption of Tenney’s stretch to protect sovereigns of the people was a full-force embezzlement of liberty.  Deployed today to exonerate sovereign county judges in their oppression of those in whom liberty is vested by the fundamental law, Pierson’s manufacture of judicial immunity is—in perspective—nothing short of a third American revolution.
Congress Expressly Intended to Abrogate Judicial Immunity
            Nor can Chief Justice Warren’s “presumption” withstand the incontrovertible record—The 1871 Congress repeatedly expressed intent that the Civil Rights Act would abrogate judicial immunity.  Congress adopted the language of Section 1983 from its criminal analog—the 1866 Civil Rights Act, today codified at 18 U.S.C. § 242.  Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961).[24]  Section 1983 was introduced by Ohio Representative Shellabarger, who explained his bill on the House floor by referencing Section 2 of the 1866 Act: “that section provides a criminal proceeding in identically the same case as this one provides a civil remedy for . . . ”[25]  The Acts thus “must be construed as in pari materia”—any construction of the 1871 Act must admit congressional intent in enacting the 1866 Act.  Picking v. Pennsylvania R.R., 151 F.2d 240 (3rd Cir. 1945).
On that record it is incontrovertible that the 42nd Congress affirmatively rejected common law judicial immunity.
I answer it is better to invade the judicial power of the States than permit it to invade, strike down, and destroy the civil rights of citizens. A judicial power perverted to such uses should be speedily invaded.
 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 1837 (1866) (remarks of Representative Lawrence).  The 1866 Act was vetoed by President Johnson because it abrogated common law judicial immunity.[26]  In the fight to defeat the veto, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Trumbull expressed revulsion at the entire concept of judicial immunity: “It is the very doctrine out of which the rebellion was hatched.”[27]
            Section 1 of the 1871 Act (now Section 1983) passed rapidly through Congress because debate wasn’t necessary—Congress recognized Section 1 as merely “adding” a civil remedy to the 1866 Act.  Debate instead focused on section 2 of the bill (modernly Section 1985) because of concerns over federalism and regulation of private behavior.  Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 99 (1971).
            The recorded debate demonstrates unequivocally that Congress intended to abrogate common law judicial immunity:
[T]he decisions of the county judges, who are made little kings, with almost despotic powers to carry out the demands of the legislature which elected them-powers which, almost without exception, have been exercised against Republicans without regard to law or justice, make up a catalogue of wrongs, outrageous violations, and evasions of the spirit of the new constitution, unscrupulous malignity and partisan hate never paralleled in the history of parties in this country or any other.
 Cong. Globe, 42nd Cong., 1st Sess. 186 (1871) (remarks of Representative Platt).
What is to be the case of a judge? . . . Is that State judge to be taken from his bench? Is he to be liable in an action?  … It is the language of the bill: for there is no limitation whatsoever on the terms that are employed, and they are as comprehensive as can be used.
Id. (remarks of Senator Thurman).
“[T]he judge of a State court, though acting under oath of office, is made liable to a suit in the Federal Court and subject to damages for his decision against a suitor, however honest and conscientious that decision may be . . .”
Id. (remarks of Representative Lewis).  Representative Arthur recognized the law would be a drastic reversal of common law immunity:
Hitherto, in all the history of this country and of England, no judge or court has been held liable, civilly or criminally, for judicial acts …. Willfulness and corruption in error alone created a liability . . . .  Under the provisions of this section every judge in the State court. . . will enter upon and pursue the call of official duty with the sword of Damocles suspended over him . . .”
Cong. Globe, 42nd Cong., 1st Sess. (1871) 365-366.[28]
Courts considering parallel questions have deferred to this vivid record.  See, e.g., Picking v. Pennsylvania R.R., 151 F.2d 240 (3rd Cir. 1945) (“But the privilege as we have stated was a rule of the common law. Congress possessed the power to wipe it out. We think that the conclusion is irresistible that Congress by enacting the Civil Rights Act sub judice intended to abrogate the privilege to the extent indicated by that act and in fact did so . . . .  The statute must be deemed to include members of the state judiciary acting in official capacity.”); Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 665 (1978); Owen v. City of Independence, Mo., 445 U.S. 622, 643 (1980) (“Nowhere in the debates, however, is there a suggestion that the common law excused a city from liability on account of the good faith of its authorized agents, much less an indication of a congressional intent to incorporate such an immunity into the Civil Rights Act”); Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 543 (1984).
Far from an intent to incorporate common law judicial immunity, Congress in passing both Acts specifically intended to eliminate it as the source of the monumental evil of state-sponsored oppression jeopardizing our nation’s existence by precipitating civil warfare.[29]

 

“The devastation caused by Minnesota Family Courts may be even more abominable than what we have  seen in California, Florida, Connecticut, and throughout the nation” says Colbern Stuart, President of California Coalition.  “Ms. Grazzin-Rucki’s family was so severely abused by Minnesota Family Courts that the children simply couldn’t withstand the turmoil.  Ms. Grazzini-Rucki’s and her children’s tragedy shows how atrociously incompetent and downright criminal American Family Courts have become despite handling delicate family matters, and why Family Court must immediately cease its disastrous experiment with family well-being” says Stuart.

California Coalition is passing along Ms. Grazzini-Rucki’s and Ms. MacDonald’s request to assist in locating the Grazzini-Rucki children–if you have any information about their whereabouts, please visit www.Missingkids.com to learn how to help.

With briefing on these critical family court immunity issues now ongoing in the Eighth and Ninth Circuits, Family Courts are facing more pressure than they’ve ever before experienced.  WeightierMatter will be posting regular updates of both cases.

 

Footnotes:

[1] Sparkman at 368 (Stewart, J. dissenting).

[2]  “[T]o no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.”  Magna Carta (1215); “[W]here there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law, whenever that right is invaded.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803) (quoting William M. Blackstone, 3 Commentaries *23).

[3] Connick v. Thompson, 131 S. Ct. 1350, 1365 (2011)

[4] “Few persons sufficiently irritated to institute an action against a judge for his judicial acts would hesitate to ascribe any character to the acts which would be essential to the maintenance of the action.” Bradley at 348.

[5] Similar historical analyses are apparent in Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 172-85 (1961); Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 703 (1978); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 559-62 (1967) (Douglas, J., dissenting); Hoffman v. Harris, 511 U.S. 1060 (1994) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of cert.) (“The courts that have accorded absolute immunity to social workers appear to have overlooked the necessary historical inquiry; none has seriously considered whether social workers enjoyed absolute immunity for their official duties in 1871. If they did not, absolute immunity is unavailable to social workers under § 1983; Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 132 (1997) (Scalia, J., concurring).  See also Jensen v. Lane Cnty., 222 F.3d 570, 577 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding no “firmly rooted tradition” of immunity for function of a private psychiatrist employed by prison).

[6] Martinez is abrogated law “mooted” by abandonment of the appeal.  Martinez v. Winner, 800 F.2d 230, 231 (10th Cir. 1986).

[7]  Rheuark relied on Slavin v. Curry, 574 F.2d 1256, 1263-64 (5th Cir.) opinion modified on denial of reh’g, 583 F.2d 779 (5th Cir. 1978), overruled by Sparks v. Duval Cnty. Ranch Co., 604 F.2d 976 (5th Cir. 1979) (“Under Texas [statutory] law trial judges select their court reporters, who thereafter serve during the pleasure of the judge.”  Sparks affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision denying immunity to co-conspirators.  Dissenters in the Sparks en banc decision relied heavily on Slavin.  The Supreme Court’s affirmation in Sparks abrogates Slavin.

[8] A simple example is that the Chief Justice of the United States is authorized by law to serve as the Chancellor of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.  20 U.S.C. § 76cc. Such authorization does not convert such service to a judicial act.  See, e.g., Lynch v. Johnson, 420 F.2d 818 (1970) (“A judge does not cease to be a judge when he undertakes to chair a PTA meeting, but, of course, he does not bring judicial immunity to that forum, either.”)  Id. at 820 (cited favorably in Sparkman at 370 n. 10).

[9] Opening Brief of Appellant’s, APP 124

[10] APP COA -291

[11] Minn. Stat 148.88, Psychology Practice Act. Also see Minn. Admin. Rules 7200

[12] Knutson’s Brief page 21

[13] This distinction was recognized in Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978), fn. 7.  See also Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 523, 535-36 (1868) (“In reference to judges of limited and inferior authority, it has been held that they are protected only when they act within their jurisdiction.”); Yates v. Lansing, 5 Johnson 282, 291 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1810) 1810 WL 1044, aff’d, 1811 WL 1445 (1811) (“[T]he judges of the king’s superior courts of general jurisdiction were not liable to answer personally for their errors in judgment. . . .  [W]ith respect to the inferior courts, it was only while they act within their jurisdiction.”); Phelps v. Sill, 1 Day 315, 327 (1804).  See also 1871 comments of Representative Arthur, infra, describing common law immunity: “Hitherto, in all the history of this country and of England, no judge or court has been held liable, civilly or criminally, for judicial acts …. Willfulness and corruption in error alone created a liability . . . .  “

[14] Specific to family issues, the Meyers plaintiffs accused “us[ing] the interviews [of children] to coerce perjured statements from young and vulnerable witnesses” in a criminal investigation and “initiat[ing] neglect proceedings in the family court on behalf of the Scott County Human Services Department [and] sign[ing] and approv[ing] the neglect petitions.”  Id. at 1450.  Because these functions are “functionally comparable to prosecutor’s initiation of the judicial process,” this Court extended absolute immunity.  Id. at 1452.

[15] Appellants’ Brf, APP 125

[16] All of the Fifth, Eleventh, and Ninth Circuit authority derived from McAlester’s four-part test is error after Sparkman.  See, e.g., Dykes v. Hosemann, 776 F.2d 942, 946 (11th Cir.  1985); Adams v. McIlhany, 764 F.2d 294 (5th Cir. 1985); Holloway v. Walker, 765 F.2d 517, 522 (5th Cir. 1985); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072 (9th Cir. 1986), and dozens of authority-in-error relying thereon.

[17] Analyzed in Bradley at n. 16.  “[A] judge of a county court was sued for slander, and he put in a plea that the words complained of were spoken by him in his capacity as such judge, while sitting in his court, and trying a cause in which the plaintiff was defendant.”

[18] That privilege is narrow: “The Senators and Representatives . . . shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”  The privilege is against arrest—not civil liability—does not extend to felonies or treason, or “breach of the peace”— a misdemeanor.  Arrest outside of “Session” is permitted, and members maybe “questioned” for activity other than “speech or debate.”  Tenney at 377 (citing Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1880) (false imprisonment not privileged); Marshall v. Gordon, 243 U.S. 521 (1917).  Even so limited Jefferson was fearful of the power it gave legislators.  Tenney at 375.  Hamilton was not so fearful of “the least dangerous branch”—because it exercised no similar liberty. The Federalist No. 78 (A. Hamilton) (1788).

[19] See Separation of powers Minn. Const. Art 3, sec 1.

[20] Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1074 (1991).

[21] Minnesota Constitution, Article 1. sec. 8 provides:

Redress of injuries or wrongs.

Every person is entitled to a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive to his person, property or character, and to obtain justice freely and without purchase, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, conformable to the laws.

[22] “The entire social and political structure of America rests upon the cornerstone that all men have certain rights which are inherent and inalienable.  Among these are the right to be protected in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; the right to acquire, possess and enjoy property; and the right to establish a home and family relations—all under equal and impartial laws which govern the whole community and each member thereof… The rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens exist notwithstanding there is no specific enumeration thereof in State Constitutions.”  Theide at 226-27, 14 NW 2d at 406.

[23] See Note, Liability of Judicial Officers Under Section 1983, 79 YALE L.J. 322, 337 (1969) (“Yale Note”).

[24] See also Yale Note at 327-328.

[25] Cong. Globe, 42nd Cong., 1st Sess. 60 (App.) (1871); Yale Note at 327.

[26] Yale Note at 327.

[27] Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 1758 (1866) (remarks of Senator Trumbull); Yale Note at 328.

[28] See also Yale Note at 328 and references to additional consistent comments in n. 38.  “On three occasions during the debates, legislators explicitly stated that judges would be liable under the [1871] Act.  No one denied the statements.”  “In sum, the question of congressional intent seems relatively clear: there was no universal acceptance of the broad English immunity rule in 1871, and the only legislative history available supports the proposition that Congress intended Section 1983 to cover judges.”  Yale Note at 328. Yale Note’s 1969 author left open the door that “the legislative history does not preclude entirely the Court’s construction of the statute if the policy reasons for judicial immunity are sufficiently persuasive.”  That “policy reasons” door was closed eleven years later in Malley.

[29] Congress’ intent to hold judges accountable is recorded as recently as 1979 by the 96th Congress:

[Section 1983] is an essential element of an extraordinary series of congressional enactments that transformed the relationship between the Federal Government and its constituent parts.  [T]he very purpose of the 1983 was to interpose the Federal courts between the States and the people, as guardians of the people’s Federal rights—to protect the people from unconstitutional action under color of State law, whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial.

Statement of Representative David A. Clarke, Chairperson, Committee on Judiciary, Government of the District of Columbia on the  Act of Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284, PL 170 LH, 1st Sess. (Dec. 29, 1979) (emphasis added).

FAIR USE AND LEGAL DISCLAIMER AND WARNING (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

CENSORSHIP IS A CRIME, AND SO IS THE “AS IS PHILOSOPHY” THAT ANYONE WOULD USE TO JUSTIFY IT IN COMMITTING SUCH A CRIME AND HIGH TREASON, AMONG OTHER THINGS.

1) CONTRIBUTOR TO THIS BLOG AND AUTHOR IS NOT A LAWYER, ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, LEGAL PRACTITIONER, OR ADVOCATE, THUS, NONE OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS POST COULD POSSIBLY BE USED AS LEGAL ADVICE.  IT IS EXPLICITLY NOT THE INTENT.  ONE WOULD, HYPOTHETICALLY, USE AT ONE’S OWN RISK AND PERIL IN REALITY.

2)  THIS POST IS MADE IN GOOD FAITH.

3)  THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS POST AND ON THIS BLOG IS SOLELY FOR ACADEMIC RESEARCH PURPOSES AND/OR ENTERTAINMENT AND SHOULD EXPRESSLY NOT BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.  IT IS PROTECTED BY 17 USC, SECTION 107 (“FAIR USE”).

4)  THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR OF THIS POST IS the EDITOR FOR CCFC, CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN, A PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION.

MOTHERS STAKE STRONGER THAN FATHER’S, SCIENCE SUPPORTS


SCIENTISTS DISCOVER CHILDREN’S CELLS LIVING IN MOTHER’S BRAIN FOR FORTY-FIFTY YEARS AFTER CONCEPTION, EVEN WHEN CHILD NOT CARRIED FULL-TERM

7½ week embryo

 Naturally,

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-discover-childrens-cells-living-in-mothers-brain/

Click on the link above to read about how a child’s cells are  found forty to fifty (40-50) years after its conception in natural, biological mother’s body.  Scientists have even linked a protective function to these biological stakeholder cells that the US family court system would be wise to support, and the “states.”    It appears that mothers indeed do have a more natural, wealthier reserve of socially and economically advantageous and sustainable resources to leverage in weightier,  more  statistically reliable Daubert terms.   Has the US Health and Human Services Department and its “state” Eugenicist, misogynistic counterparts heard the news?  Equal parenting as a matter of law naturally determines mother’s share, or, community stake in he/r own child, and child’s rights are naturally and lawfully reciprocal as endowed by our divine Creator ALMIGHTY GOD, his living Gift and direct testimony.  Would anyone else care to “weigh-in” on the matter like mothers had to do for ten months of being with child without paternal support? 

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,

 

ENHANCING THE QUALITY OF PARENTAL LEGAL REPRESENTATION ACT OF 2011 . . . FOR FATHER’S ONLY?


H.R.3873 — Enhancing the Quality of Parental Legal Representation Act of 2011 (Introduced in House – IH) 

HR 3873 IH

112th CONGRESS2d Session H. R. 3873To provide funds to State courts for the provision of legal representation to parents and legal guardians with respect to child welfare cases.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESFebruary 1, 2012Ms. MOORE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means


A BILLTo provide funds to State courts for the provision of legal representation to parents and legal guardians with respect to child welfare cases.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the `Enhancing the Quality of Parental Legal Representation Act of 2011′.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
      (1) In the Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act of 2000, the Congress found that `under both Federal and State law, the courts play a crucial and essential role in the Nation’s child welfare system and in ensuring safety, stability, and permanence for abused and neglected children under the supervision of that system’.
      (2) Child outcomes are improved and courts function more effectively when all parties have quality legal representation. Analysis of data from programs in New York and Michigan revealed that more than 50 percent of children avoided unnecessary foster care placement when all parties received high quality representation. According to the American Bar Association, a pilot program in the State of Washington to improve representation for parents resulted in `a 53.3 percent increase in the rate of reunification’.
      (3) In New York, children placed in foster care whose parents receive high quality legal representation spent on average 4.5 months in placement compared to a statewide average of 2 1/2 years and re-entry rates of 1 percent compared to 15 percent statewide.
      (4) According to the American Bar Association, the cost per family for high quality legal services in New York was approximately $6,000 over the life of a case as compared to anywhere from $29,000 to $66,000 for 1 year of foster care for a child in New York City in 2010.
      (5) Training and standards of representation are necessary to ensure qualified representation. According to the American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law, parental representation is `often substandard, resulting in the failure of due process in these cases. As a result, numerous children are needlessly separated from their parents for extended periods of time and in many cases families are permanently severed through termination of parental rights orders’ and most states have no standard training requirements for attorneys representing parents in their state.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO THE COURT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

    (a) Provision of Legal Representation for Parents and Legal Guardians With Respect to Child Welfare Cases- Section 438(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 629h(a)) is amended–
      (1) in paragraph (3), by striking `and’ at the end;
      (2) in paragraph (4)(B), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and’; and
      (3) by adding at the end the following:
      `(5) to provide legal representation for parents and legal guardians with respect to proceedings described in paragraph (1).’.
    (b) Application- Section 438(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 629h(b)) is amended–
      (1) in paragraph (1)–
        (A) by striking `and’ at the end of subparagraph (B);
        (B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C) and inserting `; and’; and
        (C) by adding at the end the following:
        `(D) in the case of a grant for any purpose described in subsection (a)(5)–
          `(i) a description of how the grant will be used to provide legal representation to parents and legal guardians;
          `(ii) a description of how the court will prioritize the provision of legal representation, including how and when attorneys will be assigned to represent a parent or legal guardian; and
          `(iii) 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 increased quality representation of parents and legal guardians with respect to child welfare cases will improve child and family outcomes.’; and
      (2) in paragraph (2)–
        (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking `or’;
        (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking `and (C)’ and inserting `(C), and (D)’; and
        (C) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E); and
        (D) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
        `(D) the purpose described in subsection (a)(5); or’.
    (c) Amount of Grant- Section 438(c)(1) is amended by striking `and (C)’ and inserting `(C), and (D)’.
    (d) Allocation of Funds- Section 438(c)(3)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 629h(c)(3)(A)) is amended–
      (1) by striking `and’ at the end of clause (iii);
      (2) by redesignating clause (iv) as clause (v); and
      (3) by inserting after clause (iii) the following:
          `(iv) $10,000,000 for grants for the purpose described in subsection (a)(5); and’.
    (e) Funding- Section 436 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 629g) is amended–
      (1) in subsection (a), by striking `$345,000,000′ and inserting `$355,000,000′; and
      (2) in subsection (b)(2), by striking `$30,000,000′ and inserting `$40,000,000′.

 

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,

Freemasonry, Kidnapping and Murder


Freemasonry, Kidnapping and Murder

From all accounts Maureen Spalek was the model mother, caring for her three children in the best way she possibly could. Life was pretty routine for Maurine, until she had a falling out with her high-level Freemason Husband:
 
“once married to an individual who told her openly that he was an untouchable high level Freemason. After a major disagreement and subsequent divorce her children were illegally taken after a visit to hospital for one of her children who was knocked over by a motor cycle in suspicious circumstances. The nurse involved wrote a report saying that Maureen was unstable and an unfit mother. The children were immediately taken in to care and very soon after adopted. Maureen has had independent reports stating that she is perfectly fit.” (Source)
 
When Maureen took her 4 year old with a broken leg to the hospital, she was forced to wait for over 24 hours before they would even treat him. Long enough to make any mother worth her salt angry enough to spit nails. When Maureen complained about this gross neglect, she was written up by the nurse in charge as being “defiant towards authority”.
 
The Nurse also wrote other derogatory comments about Maureen and filed her report with Social Services. As a result, all 3 of Maureen’s children were taken into custody by Social Services and placed in Foster homes. Maureen’s children were kidnapped and placed with other families without so much as a hearing to validate the seriousness of the Nurse’s report.
 
This ties into the recent events that involve Hollie and Anne Greig, whose home was broken into by police, ransacked as if by vandals, computers stolen and her locks changed. All because one lone and certified “nut-job”, who has befriended the pedophile gang that raped Hollie, and is still at large, wrote a letter to Social Services.
 
So, if you are a high ranking Freemason or close friends with a pedophile rape gang, UK Social Services is on your side. However, if you are a poor defenseless woman divorced from a high-level Freemason, or a little girl that was gang-raped repeatedly for years by a Pedophile gang, don’t bother complaining to the “authorities”. Unless you want more of the same.
 
After her children were taken by police, Maureen Spalek went to the Foster home to make sure they were not being mistreated. She rang the bell, no-one answered, she went away. The Foster parents called police and 7 police cars showed up on Maureen’s doorstep, kicked in her door, and hauled her off to jail.
 
As of this writing, no police cars have showed up or kicked the doors down of any of the alleged pedophiles in the Hollie Greig case. Not one. Maureen was denied legal representation and wasn’t charged until after she had spent some time in a cold dank prison cell reserved for loving mothers concerned about their children’s welfare.
 
The children of Maureen Spalek were put up for adoption. It appears that Nurse who wrote the report had a guilty conscience over the whole affair and was getting ready to “spill the beans” to Maureen.
 
“However, the nurse was murdered before she could speak to her. An individual was convicted of the murder and sentenced. Maureen attempted to get a visiting pass to the prison in an attempt to find out if this person did murder the nurse and why. Before she could make the visit the prisoner was killed in prison. Maureen is receiving daily harassment from Cheshire and Mersyside police organized through the untouchable masonic connections, she has also been the victim of corrupt judges and medical staff.” (Ibid)
 
 
The man who murdered the Nurse was identified as a “Contract Killer”. In other words, it is believed he was paid to kill the Nurse by someone who was very threatened by the direction things were going. He to had a twinge of remorse and was preparing to “name names” to Maureen. It looks like he was murdered as well. The prison stated he died “under suspicious circumstances”.
 
Yes, there are many ways to die, in “Merry Old Free-masonic England”. One could get hit by a car, or contract a terminal illness. It appears that quickest route to the funeral home involves the refusal to cover-up for the crimes of those that are connected to people in power.
 
To get arrested and thrown in “the clink” all you need to do is expose powerful Pedophiles, like Robert Green, or send your child a birthday card, like Maureen Spalek. Yes, Maureen Spalek was arrested once more for the horrific crime of sending a birthday card to her son. The son she painfully brought into this world. The son whose diapers she changed. The son who she fed and taught to walk. The son who was unlawfully kidnapped by the State.
 
Undoubtedly, as we speak, the police have placed surveillance on Maureen’s home (probably similar to the surveillance that tipped them off to the change of heart experienced by the now dead Nurse and her dead killer) where they monitor her night-time prayers for any mention of the names of her kidnapped children.
 
Still a third case has come to my attention. This one involves a Joseph Wallace, who demanded that the City of Glasgow explain to him why his son was permitted to be supervised by a State employee with a record of child molestation. It appears that Joseph’s son was also victimized by this animal. The Glasgow city attorney responded that the matter really wasn’t their concern and implied that somehow, if this employee they apparently hired to work around children, had child molestation in his past, it was Joseph’s duty and not theirs to discover it.
 
We can see now the genuine concern that our politicians have for our children. They are hard at work throwing journalists like Robert Green, or birthday card senders, like Maureen Spalek, in jail. Apparently they cannot afford to provide either Robert or Maureen with legal counsel because their lawyers are to busy helping to orchestrate a cover-up so horrific it defies imagination.
 
The only weapon we the people have is exposure. Please donate and help make this happen. Every penny will go towards helping publicize the Hollie Greig and Maureen Spalek case all across the internet.  

Grazzini-Rucki v. JUDGE David Knutson, US Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Reply Brief


Grazzini-Rucki v. Judge David L. Knutson

US Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Reply Brief

 GRAZZINI-RUCKI REPLY BRIEF IN THE US EIGTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AGAINST JUDGE DAVID L. KNUTSON, MN FAMILY COURT JUDGE BELOW (FIRST LINK)

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/257912195/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true

CORRUPT LINKS TO VIDEOS PERTAINING TO THE GRAZZINI-RUCKI CASE AND LAWYER MICHELLE MACDONALD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyCfGMoXX4Y

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AHZzHy9qFs

 

Click on the link above to read the reply brief filed by Attorney Michelle MacDonald in the US Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for Minnesota mother Sandra Grazzini-Rucki.  “Sam” hasn’t seen he/r children in over two years pursuant to Federally and (US) Constitutionally impermissible post-judgment court “orders,” though Grazzini-Rucki was not noticed of any such “orders” until s/he received a call one morning telling he/r that s/he had to vacate he/r home in which s/he raised five children with only the clothes she could carry by Noon, or to otherwise be arrested.  Sandra, or, “Sam,” the epitome of a church-going “soccer mom” with no criminal history, no mental health issues, and no alcohol or substance abuse problems was as stunned as all Real Americans reading this post should be. 

Sandra was informed that s/he could no longer be a part of he/r children’s life, he/r ex-husband, the children’s father, David Rucki, reportedly a character with a shady livelihood, as per Sandra, was given sole custody of the five children, one of whom, last Author read on Carver County Corruption website (founded by another similarly deprived and violated mother, Lea Banken-Dannewitz, also of Minnesota), one of Sandra’s teenage daughters had allegedly run away from he/r father’s home.  To make matters more complex, David Rucki’s sister and he/r daughter moved into Sandra’s home where s/he had raised a happy family and lived for almost two decades without incident or injury to the children.  Apparently, though Author has not read any court papers as they are most likely confidential (naturally)with regard to the matter to confirm, and not that Author would want to invade the privacy of a another most likely shell-shocked mother also like  the  Author of this post and website who has not been “permitted’ any meaningful contact with he/r only child, a little boy who is now eight years old, in almost three years pursuant to similarly perplexing “orders” issued by a similarly situated family court of fraud in Harris County, Texas in Houston by Judge Lisa A. Millard and Associate Judge Conrad Moren, David Rucki’s sister not only took over Sandra’s home and moved in with he/r own family, but was reportedly given custody of Sandra’s children because father David Rucki , as reported, did not want it.  Real Responsible!

 

Thank your Creator today for Real lawyers and family advocates like Michelle MacDonald, who is working on various projects such as the Family Innocence Project and has a website called Family Court.com who happened upon Sandra and decided to take he/r case pro bono.  Together, they have been through quite the ride and even submitted multiple briefs to the Highest Court in all the Land, the US Supreme Court, on writ of certiorari which can be found on the blog . 

 

Author of  (DEDICATED TO) The Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and Our Children Who Want to Come Home , was excited to learn today that Ms. MacDonald has joined forces with California Coalition for Families and Children, which is also trying to eradicate the judicially created, thus, judicially legislated doctrine of “judicial ‘immunity.'”  Michelle is fighting in the US Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals federal district while Mr. Colbern Stuart, president of California Coalition (“CCFC”) has been fighting the Good fight for families and freedom in the Federal US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals District following the US Third Circuit Court’s landmark decision against Kids for Cash Judge Mark Ciavarella and Mike Conahan in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania that set precedent which is binding and persuasive within the Third Circuit Court region that encompasses Pennsylvania and New Jersey.    Good luck!

 

Go  to www.weightiermatters.com for the latest on California Coalition for Families and Children 9th Circuit Court Action, or Check out Michelle’s website http://www.macdonaldlawfirm.com/.

MAP OF THE US FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT REGIONS WHICH MAKE THE LAWS FOR THEIR TERRITORIES

RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD LEGISLATION BY SANTORUM|ALL SINGLE MOTHERS NEED TO READ AND STUDY THIS AND STAY OUT OF COURT AND AWAY FROM CPS AND POLICE


[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[S. 2830 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]






                                                       Calendar No. 714
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2830

   To amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to promote 
 healthy marriages and responsible fatherhood, and for other purposes.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 22, 2004

Mr. Santorum (for himself and Mr. Bayh) introduced the following bill; 
                     which was read the first time

                           September 23, 2004

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
   To amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to promote 
 healthy marriages and responsible fatherhood, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Healthy Marriages and Responsible 
Fatherhood Act of 2004''.

         TITLE I--HEALTHY MARRIAGES AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD

SEC. 101. PROMOTION OF FAMILY FORMATION AND HEALTHY MARRIAGE.

    (a) TANF State Plans.--Section 402(a)(1)(A) of the Social Security 
Act (42 U.S.C. 602(a)(1)(A)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
                            ``(vii) Encourage equitable treatment of 
                        healthy 2-parent married families under the 
                        program referred to in clause (i).''.
    (b) Healthy Marriage Promotion Grants; Repeal of Bonus for 
Reduction of Illegitimacy Ratio.--Section 403(a)(2) of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(2) Healthy marriage promotion grants.--
                    ``(A) Authority.--
                            ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall 
                        award competitive grants to States, 
                        territories, and Indian tribes and tribal 
                        organizations for not more than 50 percent of 
                        the cost of developing and implementing 
                        innovative programs to promote and support 
                        healthy 2-parent married families.
                            ``(ii) Use of other tanf funds.--A State or 
                        Indian tribe with an approved tribal family 
                        assistance plan may use funds provided under 
                        other grants made under this part for all or 
                        part of the expenditures incurred for the 
                        remainder of the costs described in clause (i). 
                        In the case of a State, any such funds expended 
                        shall not be considered qualified State 
                        expenditures for purposes of section 409(a)(7).
                    ``(B) Healthy marriage promotion activities.--Funds 
                provided under subparagraph (A) and corresponding State 
                matching funds shall be used to support any of the 
                following programs or activities:
                            ``(i) Public advertising campaigns on the 
                        value of marriage and the skills needed to 
                        increase marital stability and health.
                            ``(ii) Education in high schools on the 
                        value of marriage, relationship skills, and 
                        budgeting.
                            ``(iii) Marriage education, marriage 
                        skills, and relationship skills programs that 
                        may include case management for, and referrals 
                        to, programs for parenting skills, financial 
                        management, conflict resolution, and job and 
                        career advancement, for non-married pregnant 
                        women, non-married expectant fathers, and non-
                        married recent parents.
                            ``(iv) Pre-marital education and marriage 
                        skills training for engaged couples and for 
                        couples or individuals interested in marriage.
                            ``(v) Marriage enhancement and marriage 
                        skills training programs for married couples.
                            ``(vi) Divorce reduction programs that 
                        teach relationship skills.
                            ``(vii) Marriage mentoring programs which 
                        use married couples as role models and mentors.
                            ``(viii) Programs to reduce the 
                        disincentives to marriage in means-tested aid 
                        programs, if offered in conjunction with any 
                        activity described in this subparagraph.
                            ``(ix) Training for individuals who will 
                        conduct any of the programs or activities 
                        described in clauses (i) through (viii).
                    ``(C) Voluntary participation.--Participation in 
                programs or activities described in any of clauses 
                (iii) through (vii) of subparagraph (B) shall be 
                voluntary.
                    ``(D) General rules governing use of funds.--
                            ``(i) In general.--The rules of section 
                        404, other than subsection (b) of that section, 
                        shall not apply to a grant made under this 
                        paragraph.
                            ``(ii) Rule of construction.--Nothing in 
                        this part or part C shall be construed as 
                        prohibiting a State from using funds made 
                        available under a grant awarded under this 
                        paragraph to award a subgrant or contract to a 
                        fatherhood promotion organization to carry out 
                        programs or activities described in 
                        subparagraph (B).
                    ``(E) Requirements for receipt of funds.--A State, 
                territory, or Indian tribe or tribal organization may 
                not be awarded a grant under this paragraph unless the 
                State, territory, Indian tribe or tribal organization, 
                as a condition of receiving funds under such a grant--
                            ``(i) consults with experts in domestic 
                        violence or with relevant community domestic 
                        violence coalitions in developing such programs 
                        or activities; and
                            ``(ii) describes in the application for a 
                        grant under this paragraph--
                                    ``(I) how the programs or 
                                activities proposed to be conducted 
                                will address, as appropriate, issues of 
                                domestic violence; and
                                    ``(II) what the State, territory, 
                                or Indian tribe or tribal organization, 
                                will do, to the extent relevant, to 
                                ensure that participation in such 
                                programs or activities is voluntary, 
                                and to inform potential participants 
                                that their involvement is voluntary.
                    ``(F) Appropriation.--
                            ``(i) In general.--Out of any money in the 
                        Treasury of the United States not otherwise 
                        appropriated, there are appropriated for each 
                        of fiscal years 2005 through 2006, $100,000,000 
                        for grants under this paragraph.
                            ``(ii) Extended availability of funds.--
                                    ``(I) In general.--Funds 
                                appropriated under clause (i) for each 
                                of fiscal years 2005 through 2006 shall 
                                remain available to the Secretary until 
                                expended.
                                    ``(II) Authority for grant 
                                recipients.--A State, territory, or 
                                Indian tribe or tribal organization may 
                                use funds made available under a grant 
                                awarded under this paragraph without 
                                fiscal year limitation pursuant to the 
                                terms of the grant.''.
    (c) Counting of Spending on Non-Eligible Families To Prevent and 
Reduce Incidence of Out-of-Wedlock Births, Encourage Formation and 
Maintenance of Healthy 2-Parent Married Families, or Encourage 
Responsible Fatherhood.--Section 409(a)(7)(B)(i) of the Social Security 
Act (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(7)(B)(i)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
                                    ``(V) Counting of spending on non-
                                eligible families to prevent and reduce 
                                incidence of out-of-wedlock births, 
                                encourage formation and maintenance of 
                                healthy 2-parent married families, or 
                                encourage responsible fatherhood.--
                                Subject to subclauses (II) and (III), 
                                the term `qualified State expenditures' 
                                includes the total expenditures by the 
                                State during the fiscal year under all 
                                State programs for a purpose described 
                                in paragraph (3) or (4) of section 
                                401(a).''.
    (d) Purposes.--Section 401(a)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 601(a)(4)) is amended by striking ``two-parent families'' and 
inserting ``healthy 2-parent married families, and encourage 
responsible fatherhood''.

SEC. 102. RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM.

    (a) Responsible Fatherhood Program.--
            (1) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
                    (A) Nearly 24,000,000 children in the United 
                States, or 34 percent of all such children, live apart 
                from their biological father.
                    (B) Sixty percent of couples who divorce have at 
                least 1 child.
                    (C) The number of children living with only a 
                mother increased from just over 5,000,000 in 1960 to 
                17,000,000 in 1999, and between 1981 and 1991 the 
                percentage of children living with only 1 parent 
                increased from 19 percent to 25 percent.
                    (D) Forty percent of children who live in 
                households without a father have not seen their father 
                in at least 1 year and 50 percent of such children have 
                never visited their father's home.
                    (E) The most important factor in a child's 
                upbringing is whether the child is brought up in a 
                loving, healthy, supportive environment.
                    (F) Children who live without contact with their 
                biological father are, in comparison to children who 
                have such contact--
                            (i) 5 times more likely to live in poverty;
                            (ii) more likely to bring weapons and drugs 
                        into the classroom;
                            (iii) twice as likely to commit crime;
                            (iv) twice as likely to drop out of school;
                            (v) more likely to commit suicide;
                            (vi) more than twice as likely to abuse 
                        alcohol or drugs; and
                            (vii) more likely to become pregnant as 
                        teenagers.
                    (G) Violent criminals are overwhelmingly males who 
                grew up without fathers.
                    (H) Between 20 and 30 percent of families in 
                poverty are headed by women who have suffered domestic 
                violence during the past year, and between 40 and 60 
                percent of women with children receiving welfare were 
                abused sometime during their life.
                    (I) Responsible fatherhood includes active 
                participation in financial support and child care, as 
                well as the formation and maintenance of a positive, 
                healthy, and nonviolent relationship between father and 
                child and a cooperative relationship between parents.
                    (J) States should be encouraged to implement 
                programs that provide support for responsible 
                fatherhood, promote marriage, and increase the 
                incidence of marriage, and should not be restricted 
                from implementing such programs.
                    (K) Fatherhood programs should promote and provide 
                support services for--
                            (i) loving and healthy relationships 
                        between parents and children; and
                            (ii) cooperative parenting.
                    (L) There is a social need to reconnect children 
                and fathers.
                    (M) The promotion of responsible fatherhood and 
                encouragement of healthy 2-parent married families 
                should not--
                            (i) denigrate the standing or parenting 
                        efforts of single mothers or other caregivers;
                            (ii) lessen the protection of children from 
                        abusive parents; or
                            (iii) compromise the safety or health of 
                        the custodial parent;
                but should increase the chance that children will have 
                2 caring parents to help them grow up healthy and 
                secure.
                    (N) The promotion of responsible fatherhood must 
                always recognize and promote the values of nonviolence.
                    (O) For the future of the United States and the 
                future of our children, Congress, States, and local 
                communities should assist parents to become more 
                actively involved in their children's lives.
                    (P) Child support is an important means by which a 
                parent can take financial responsibility for a child 
                and emotional support is an important means by which a 
                parent can take social responsibility for a child.
            (2) Fatherhood program.--Title I of the Personal 
        Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 
        (Public Law 104-193) is amended by adding at the end the 
        following:

``SEC. 117. FATHERHOOD PROGRAM.

    ``(a) In General.--Title IV (42 U.S.C. 601-679b) is amended by 
inserting after part B the following:

               ```PART C--RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM

 ```SEC. 441. RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD GRANTS.

    ```(a) Grants to States To Conduct Demonstration Programs.--
            ```(1) Authority to award grants.--
                    ```(A) In general.--The Secretary shall award 
                grants to up to 20 eligible States to conduct 
                demonstration programs to carry out the purposes 
                described in paragraph (2).
                    ```(B) Eligible state.--For purposes of this 
                subsection, an eligible State is a State that submits 
                to the Secretary the following:
                            ```(i) Application.--An application for a 
                        grant under this subsection, at such time, in 
                        such manner, and containing such information as 
                        the Secretary may require.
                            ```(ii) State plan.--A State plan that 
                        includes the following:
                                    ```(I) Project description.--A 
                                description of the programs or 
                                activities the State will fund under 
                                the grant, including a good faith 
                                estimate of the number and 
                                characteristics of clients to be served 
                                under such projects and how the State 
                                intends to achieve at least 2 of the 
                                purposes described in paragraph (2).
                                    ```(II) Coordination efforts.--A 
                                description of how the State will 
                                coordinate and cooperate with State and 
                                local entities responsible for carrying 
                                out other programs that relate to the 
                                purposes intended to be achieved under 
                                the demonstration program, including as 
                                appropriate, entities responsible for 
                                carrying out jobs programs and programs 
                                serving children and families.
                                    ```(III) Records, reports, and 
                                audits.--An agreement to maintain such 
                                records, submit such reports, and 
                                cooperate with such reviews and audits 
                                as the Secretary finds necessary for 
                                purposes of oversight of the 
                                demonstration program.
                            ```(iii) Certifications.--The following 
                        certifications from the chief executive officer 
                        of the State:
                                    ```(I) A certification that the 
                                State will use funds provided under the 
                                grant to promote at least 2 of the 
                                purposes described in paragraph (2).
                                    ```(II) A certification that the 
                                State will return any unused funds 
to the Secretary in accordance with the reconciliation process under 
paragraph (5).
                                    ```(III) A certification that the 
                                funds provided under the grant will be 
                                used for programs and activities that 
                                target low-income participants and that 
                                not less than 50 percent of the 
                                participants in each program or 
                                activity funded under the grant shall 
                                be--
                                            ```(aa) parents of a child 
                                        who is, or within the past 24 
                                        months has been, a recipient of 
                                        assistance or services under a 
                                        State program funded under part 
                                        A, D, or E of this title, title 
                                        XIX, or the Food Stamp Act of 
                                        1977; or
                                            ```(bb) parents, including 
                                        an expectant parent or a 
                                        married parent, whose income 
                                        (after adjustment for court-
                                        ordered child support paid or 
                                        received) does not exceed 150 
                                        percent of the poverty line.
                                    ```(IV) A certification that the 
                                State has or will comply with the 
                                requirements of paragraph (4).
                                    ```(V) A certification that funds 
                                provided to a State under this 
                                subsection shall not be used to 
                                supplement or supplant other Federal, 
                                State, or local funds that are used to 
                                support programs or activities that are 
                                related to the purposes described in 
                                paragraph (2).
                    ```(C) Preferences and factors of consideration.--
                In awarding grants under this subsection, the Secretary 
                shall take into consideration the following:
                            ```(i) Diversity of entities used to 
                        conduct programs and activities.--The Secretary 
                        shall, to the extent practicable, achieve a 
                        balance among the eligible States awarded 
                        grants under this subsection with respect to 
                        the size, urban or rural location, and 
                        employment of differing or unique methods of 
                        the entities that the eligible States intend to 
                        use to conduct the programs and activities 
                        funded under the grants.
                            ```(ii) Priority for certain states.--The 
                        Secretary shall give priority to awarding 
                        grants to eligible States that have--
                                    ```(I) demonstrated progress in 
                                achieving at least 1 of the purposes 
                                described in paragraph (2) through 
                                previous State initiatives; or
                                    ```(II) demonstrated need with 
                                respect to reducing the incidence of 
                                out-of-wedlock births or absent fathers 
                                in the State.
            ```(2) Purposes.--The purposes described in this paragraph 
        are the following:
                    ```(A) Promoting responsible fatherhood through 
                marriage promotion.--To promote marriage or sustain 
                marriage through activities such as counseling, 
                mentoring, disseminating information about the benefits 
                of marriage and 2-parent involvement for children, 
                enhancing relationship skills, education regarding how 
                to control aggressive behavior, disseminating 
                information on the causes of domestic violence and 
                child abuse, marriage preparation programs, premarital 
                counseling, marital inventories, skills-based marriage 
                education, financial planning seminars, including 
                improving a family's ability to effectively manage 
                family business affairs by means such as education, 
                counseling, or mentoring on matters related to family 
                finances, including household management, budgeting, 
                banking, and handling of financial transactions and 
                home maintenance, and divorce education and reduction 
                programs, including mediation and counseling.
                    ```(B) Promoting responsible fatherhood through 
                parenting promotion.--To promote responsible parenting 
                through activities such as counseling, mentoring, and 
                mediation, disseminating information about good 
                parenting practices, skills-based parenting education, 
                encouraging child support payments, and other methods.
                    ```(C) Promoting responsible fatherhood through 
                fostering economic stability of fathers.--To foster 
                economic stability by helping fathers improve their 
                economic status by providing activities such as work 
                first services, job search, job training, subsidized 
                employment, job retention, job enhancement, and 
                encouraging education, including career-advancing 
                education, dissemination of employment materials, 
                coordination with existing employment services such as 
                welfare-to-work programs, referrals to local employment 
                training initiatives, and other methods.
            ```(3) Restriction on use of funds.--No funds provided 
        under this subsection may be used for costs attributable to 
        court proceedings regarding matters of child visitation or 
        custody, or for legislative advocacy.
            ```(4) Requirements for receipt of funds.--A State may not 
        be awarded a grant under this section unless the State, as a 
        condition of receiving funds under such a grant--
                    ```(A) consults with experts in domestic violence 
                or with relevant community domestic violence coalitions 
                in developing such programs or activities; and
                    ```(B) describes in the application for a grant 
                under this section--
                            ```(i) how the programs or activities 
                        proposed to be conducted will address, 
as appropriate, issues of domestic violence; and
                            ```(ii) what the State will do, to the 
                        extent relevant, to ensure that participation 
                        in such programs or activities is voluntary, 
                        and to inform potential participants that their 
                        involvement is voluntary.
            ```(5) Reconciliation process.--
                    ```(A) 3-year availability of amounts allotted.--
                Each eligible State that receives a grant under this 
                subsection for a fiscal year shall return to the 
                Secretary any unused portion of the grant for such 
                fiscal year not later than the last day of the second 
                succeeding fiscal year, together with any earnings on 
                such unused portion.
                    ```(B) Procedure for redistribution.--The Secretary 
                shall establish an appropriate procedure for 
                redistributing to eligible States that have expended 
                the entire amount of a grant made under this subsection 
                for a fiscal year any amount that is returned to the 
                Secretary by eligible States under subparagraph (A).
            ```(6) Amount of grants.--
                    ```(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), 
                the amount of each grant awarded under this subsection 
                shall be an amount sufficient to implement the State 
                plan submitted under paragraph (1)(B)(ii).
                    ```(B) Minimum amounts.--No eligible State shall--
                            ```(i) in the case of the District of 
                        Columbia or a State other than the Commonwealth 
                        of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin 
                        Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the 
                        Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 
                        receive a grant for a fiscal year in an amount 
                        that is less than $1,000,000; and
                            ```(ii) in the case of the Commonwealth of 
                        Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, 
                        Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of 
                        the Northern Mariana Islands, receive a grant 
                        for a fiscal year in an amount that is less 
                        than $500,000.
            ```(7) Definition of state.--In this subsection, the term 
        ``State'' means each of the 50 States, the District of 
        Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States 
        Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of 
        the Northern Mariana Islands.
            ```(8) Authorization of appropriations.--Out of any money 
        in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise 
        appropriated, there are appropriated $45,000,000 for each of 
        fiscal years 2005 through 2006 for purposes of making grants to 
        eligible States under this subsection.
    ```(b) Grants to Eligible Entities To Conduct Demonstration 
Programs.--
            ```(1) Authority to award grants.--
                    ```(A) In general.--The Secretary shall award 
                grants to eligible entities to conduct demonstration 
                programs to carry out the purposes described in 
                subsection (a)(2).
                    ```(B) Eligible entity.--For purposes of this 
                subsection, an eligible entity is a local government, 
                local public agency, community-based or nonprofit 
                organization, or private entity, including any 
                charitable or faith-based organization, or an Indian 
                tribe (as defined in section 419(4)), that submits to 
                the Secretary the following:
                            ```(i) Application.--An application for a 
                        grant under this subsection, at such time, in 
                        such manner, and containing such information as 
                        the Secretary may require.
                            ```(ii) Project description.--A description 
                        of the programs or activities the entity 
                        intends to carry out with funds provided under 
                        the grant, including a good faith estimate of 
                        the number and characteristics of clients to be 
                        served under such programs or activities and 
                        how the entity intends to achieve at least 2 of 
                        the purposes described in subsection (a)(2).
                            ```(iii) Coordination efforts.--A 
                        description of how the entity will coordinate 
                        and cooperate with State and local entities 
                        responsible for carrying out other programs 
                        that relate to the purposes intended to be 
                        achieved under the demonstration program, 
                        including as appropriate, entities responsible 
                        for carrying out jobs programs and programs 
                        serving children and families.
                            ```(iv) Records, reports, and audits.--An 
                        agreement to maintain such records, submit such 
                        reports, and cooperate with such reviews and 
                        audits as the Secretary finds necessary for 
                        purposes of oversight of the demonstration 
                        program.
                            ```(v) Certifications.--The following 
                        certifications:
                                    ```(I) A certification that the 
                                entity will use funds provided under 
                                the grant to promote at least 2 of the 
                                purposes described in subsection 
                                (a)(2).
                                    ```(II) A certification that the 
                                entity will return any unused funds to 
                                the Secretary in accordance with the 
                                reconciliation process under paragraph 
                                (3).
                                    ```(III) A certification that the 
                                funds provided under the grant will be 
                                used for programs and activities that 
                                target low-income participants and that 
                                not less than 50 percent of the 
                                participants in each program or 
                                activity funded under the grant shall 
                                be--
                                            ```(aa) parents of a child 
                                        who is, or within the past 
24 months has been, a recipient of assistance or services under a State 
program funded under part A, D, or E of this title, title XIX, or the 
Food Stamp Act of 1977; or
                                            ```(bb) parents, including 
                                        an expectant parent or a 
                                        married parent, whose income 
                                        (after adjustment for court-
                                        ordered child support paid or 
                                        received) does not exceed 150 
                                        percent of the poverty line.
                                    ```(IV) A certification that the 
                                entity has or will comply with the 
                                requirements of paragraph (3).
                                    ```(V) A certification that funds 
                                provided to an entity under this 
                                subsection shall not be used to 
                                supplement or supplant other Federal, 
                                State, or local funds provided to the 
                                entity that are used to support 
                                programs or activities that are related 
                                to the purposes described in subsection 
                                (a)(2).
                    ```(C) Preferences and factors of consideration.--
                In awarding grants under this subsection, the Secretary 
                shall, to the extent practicable, achieve a balance 
                among the eligible entities awarded grants under this 
                subsection with respect to the size, urban or rural 
                location, and employment of differing or unique methods 
                of the entities.
            ```(2) Restriction on use of funds.--No funds provided 
        under this subsection may be used for costs attributable to 
        court proceedings regarding matters of child visitation or 
        custody, or for legislative advocacy.
            ```(3) Requirements for use of funds.--The Secretary may 
        not award a grant under this subsection to an eligible entity 
        unless the entity, as a condition of receiving funds under such 
        a grant--
                    ```(A) consults with experts in domestic violence 
                or with relevant community domestic violence coalitions 
                in developing the programs or activities to be 
                conducted with such funds awarded under the grant; and
                    ```(B) describes in the application for a grant 
                under this section--
                            ```(i) how the programs or activities 
                        proposed to be conducted will address, as 
                        appropriate, issues of domestic violence; and
                            ```(ii) what the entity will do, to the 
                        extent relevant, to ensure that participation 
                        in such programs or activities is voluntary, 
                        and to inform potential participants that their 
                        involvement is voluntary.
            ```(4) Reconciliation process.--
                    ```(A) 3-year availability of amounts allotted.--
                Each eligible entity that receives a grant under this 
                subsection for a fiscal year shall return to the 
                Secretary any unused portion of the grant for such 
                fiscal year not later than the last day of the second 
                succeeding fiscal year, together with any earnings on 
                such unused portion.
                    ```(B) Procedure for redistribution.--The Secretary 
                shall establish an appropriate procedure for 
                redistributing to eligible entities that have expended 
                the entire amount of a grant made under this subsection 
                for a fiscal year any amount that is returned to the 
                Secretary by eligible entities under subparagraph (A).
            ```(5) Authorization of appropriations.--Out of any money 
        in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise 
        appropriated, there are appropriated $30,000,000 for each of 
        fiscal years 2005 through 2006 for purposes of making grants to 
        eligible entities under this subsection.

```SEC. 442. NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 
              PROGRAMS.

    ```(a) Media Campaign National Clearinghouse for Responsible 
Fatherhood.--
            ```(1) In general.--From any funds appropriated under 
        subsection (c), the Secretary shall contract with a nationally 
        recognized, nonprofit fatherhood promotion organization 
        described in subsection (b) to--
                    ```(A) develop, promote, and distribute to 
                interested States, local governments, public agencies, 
                and private entities a media campaign that encourages 
                the appropriate involvement of parents in the life of 
                any child, with a priority for programs that 
                specifically address the issue of responsible 
                fatherhood; and
                    ```(B) develop a national clearinghouse to assist 
                States and communities in efforts to promote and 
                support marriage and responsible fatherhood by 
                collecting, evaluating, and making available (through 
                the Internet and by other means) to other States 
                information regarding the media campaigns established 
                under section 443.
            ```(2) Coordination with domestic violence programs.--The 
        Secretary shall ensure that the nationally recognized nonprofit 
        fatherhood promotion organization with a contract under 
        paragraph (1) coordinates the media campaign developed under 
        subparagraph (A) of such paragraph and the national 
        clearinghouse developed under subparagraph (B) of such 
        paragraph with national, State, or local domestic violence 
        programs.
    ```(b) Nationally Recognized, Nonprofit Fatherhood Promotion 
Organization Described.--The nationally recognized, nonprofit 
fatherhood promotion organization described in this subsection is an 
organization that has at least 4 years of experience in--
            ```(1) designing and disseminating a national public 
        education campaign, as evidenced by the production and 
        successful placement of television, radio, and print public 
service announcements that promote the importance of responsible 
fatherhood, a track record of service to Spanish-speaking populations 
and historically underserved or minority populations, the capacity to 
fulfill requests for information and a proven history of fulfilling 
such requests, and a mechanism through which the public can request 
additional information about the campaign; and
            ```(2) providing consultation and training to community-
        based organizations interested in implementing fatherhood 
        outreach, support, or skill development programs with an 
        emphasis on promoting married fatherhood as the ideal.
    ```(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Out of any money in the 
Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are 
appropriated $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2006 to 
carry out this section.

```SEC. 443. BLOCK GRANTS TO STATES TO ENCOURAGE MEDIA CAMPAIGNS.

    ```(a) Definitions.--In this section:
            ```(1) Broadcast advertisement.--The term ``broadcast 
        advertisement'' means a communication intended to be aired by a 
        television or radio broadcast station, including a 
        communication intended to be transmitted through a cable 
        channel.
            ```(2) Child at risk.--The term ``child at risk'' means 
        each young child whose family income does not exceed the 
        poverty line.
            ```(3) Poverty line.--The term ``poverty line'' has the 
        meaning given such term in section 673(2) of the Community 
        Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)), including any 
        revision required by such section, that is applicable to a 
        family of the size involved.
            ```(4) Printed or other advertisement.--The term ``printed 
        or other advertisement'' includes any communication intended to 
        be distributed through a newspaper, magazine, outdoor 
        advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general 
        public advertising, but does not include any broadcast 
        advertisement.
            ```(5) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 50 
        States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
        Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, 
        and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
            ```(6) Young child.--The term ``young child'' means an 
        individual under age 5.
    ```(b) State Certifications.--Not later than October 1 of each of 
fiscal year for which a State desires to receive an allotment under 
this section, the chief executive officer of the State shall submit to 
the Secretary a certification that the State shall--
            ```(1) use such funds to promote the formation and 
        maintenance of healthy 2-parent married families, strengthen 
        fragile families, and promote responsible fatherhood through 
        media campaigns conducted in accordance with the requirements 
        of subsection (d);
            ```(2) return any unused funds to the Secretary in 
        accordance with the reconciliation process under subsection 
        (e); and
            ```(3) comply with the reporting requirements under 
        subsection (f).
    ```(c) Payments to States.--For each of fiscal years 2005 through 
2006, the Secretary shall pay to each State that submits a 
certification under subsection (b), from any funds appropriated under 
subsection (i), for the fiscal year an amount equal to the amount of 
the allotment determined for the fiscal year under subsection (g).
    ```(d) Establishment of Media Campaigns.--Each State receiving an 
allotment under this section for a fiscal year shall use the allotment 
to conduct media campaigns as follows:
            ```(1) Conduct of media campaigns.--
                    ```(A) Radio and television media campaigns.--
                            ```(i) Production of broadcast 
                        advertisements.--At the option of the State, to 
                        produce broadcast advertisements that promote 
                        the formation and maintenance of healthy 2-
                        parent married families, strengthen fragile 
                        families, and promote responsible fatherhood.
                            ```(ii) Airtime challenge program.--At the 
                        option of the State, to establish an airtime 
                        challenge program under which the State may 
                        spend amounts allotted under this section to 
                        purchase time from a broadcast station to air a 
                        broadcast advertisement produced under clause 
                        (i), but only if the State obtains an amount of 
                        time of the same class and during a comparable 
                        period to air the advertisement using non-
                        Federal contributions.
                    ```(B) Other media campaigns.--At the option of the 
                State, to conduct a media campaign that consists of the 
                production and distribution of printed or other 
                advertisements that promote the formation and 
                maintenance of healthy 2-parent married families, 
                strengthen fragile families, and promote responsible 
                fatherhood.
            ```(2) Administration of media campaigns.--A State may 
        administer media campaigns funded under this section directly 
        or through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements with 
        public agencies, local governments, or private entities, 
        including charitable and faith-based organizations.
            ```(3) Consultation with domestic violence assistance 
        centers.--In developing broadcast and printed advertisements to 
        be used in the media campaigns conducted under paragraph (1), 
        the State or other entity administering the campaign shall 
        consult with representatives of State and local domestic 
        violence centers.
            ```(4) Non-federal contributions.--In this section, the 
        term ``non-Federal contributions'' includes contributions by 
        the State and by public and private entities. Such 
        contributions may be in cash or in kind. Such term does not 
        include any amounts provided by the Federal Government, or 
        services assisted or subsidized to any significant extent by 
        the Federal Government, or any amount expended by a State 
        before October 1, 2004.
    ```(e) Reconciliation Process.--
            ```(1) 3-year availability of amounts allotted.--Each State 
        that receives an allotment under this section shall return to 
        the Secretary any unused portion of the amount allotted to a 
        State for a fiscal year not later than the last day of the 
        second succeeding fiscal year together with any earnings on 
        such unused portion.
            ```(2) Procedure for redistribution of unused allotments.--
        The Secretary shall establish an appropriate procedure for 
        redistributing to States that have expended the entire amount 
        allotted under this section any amount that is--
                    ```(A) returned to the Secretary by States under 
                paragraph (1); or
                    ```(B) not allotted to a State under this section 
                because the State did not submit a certification under 
                subsection (b) by October 1 of a fiscal year.
    ```(f) Reporting Requirements.--
            ```(1) Monitoring and evaluation.--Each State receiving an 
        allotment under this section for a fiscal year shall monitor 
and evaluate the media campaigns conducted using funds made available 
under this section in such manner as the Secretary, in consultation 
with the States, determines appropriate.
            ```(2) Annual reports.--Not less frequently than annually, 
        each State receiving an allotment under this section for a 
        fiscal year shall submit to the Secretary reports on the media 
        campaigns conducted using funds made available under this 
        section at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
        information as the Secretary may require.
    ```(g) Amount of Allotments.--
            ```(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), of 
        the amount appropriated for the purpose of making allotments 
        under this section for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall allot 
        to each State that submits a certification under subsection (b) 
        for the fiscal year an amount equal to the sum of--
                    ```(A) the amount that bears the same ratio to 50 
                percent of such funds as the number of young children 
                in the State (as determined by the Secretary based on 
                the most current reliable data available) bears to the 
                number of such children in all States; and
                    ```(B) the amount that bears the same ratio to 50 
                percent of such funds as the number of children at risk 
                in the State (as determined by the Secretary based on 
                the most current reliable data available) bears to the 
                number of such children in all States.
            ```(2) Minimum allotments.--No allotment for a fiscal year 
        under this section shall be less than--
                    ```(A) in the case of the District of Columbia or a 
                State other than the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 
                United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and 
                the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 1 
                percent of the amount appropriated for the fiscal year 
                under subsection (i); and
                    ```(B) in the case of the Commonwealth of Puerto 
                Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American 
                Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
                Islands, 0.5 percent of such amount.
            ```(3) Pro rata reductions.--The Secretary shall make such 
        pro rata reductions to the allotments determined under this 
        subsection as are necessary to comply with the requirements of 
        paragraph (2).
    ```(h) Evaluation.--
            ```(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct an 
        evaluation of the impact of the media campaigns funded under 
        this section.
            ```(2) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2006, the 
        Secretary shall report to Congress the results of the 
        evaluation under paragraph (1).
            ```(3) Funding.--Of the amount appropriated under 
        subsection (i) for fiscal year 2005, $1,000,000 of such amount 
        shall be transferred and made available for purposes of 
        conducting the evaluation required under this subsection, and 
        shall remain available until expended.
    ```(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--Out of any money in the 
Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are 
appropriated $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2006 for 
purposes of making allotments to States under this section.'.
    ``(b) Inapplicability of Effective Date Provisions.--Section 116 
shall not apply to the amendment made by subsection (a) of this 
section.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--Section 2 of such Act is amended in the 
table of contents by inserting after the item relating to section 116 
the following new item:

``Sec. 117. Responsible fatherhood program.''.

SEC. 103. RESEARCH, EVALUATIONS, AND NATIONAL STUDIES.

    Section 413 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 613) is amended 
by adding at the end the following:
    ``(k) Funding for Research, Demonstrations, and Technical 
Assistance.--
            ``(1) Appropriation.--
                    ``(A) In general.--Out of any money in the Treasury 
                of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there 
                are appropriated $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
                2005 through 2006, which shall remain available to the 
                Secretary until expended.
                    ``(B) Use of funds.--
                            ``(i) In general.--Funds appropriated under 
                        subparagraph (A) shall be used for the purpose 
                        of--
                                    ``(I) conducting or supporting 
                                research and demonstration projects by 
                                public or private entities; or
                                    ``(II) providing technical 
                                assistance in connection with a purpose 
                                of the program funded under this part, 
                                as described in section 401(a), to 
                                States, Indian tribal organizations, 
                                sub-State entities, and such other 
                                entities as the Secretary may specify.
                            ``(ii) Requirement.--Not less than 80 
                        percent of the funds appropriated under 
                        subparagraph (A) for a fiscal year shall be 
                        expended for the purpose of conducting or 
                        supporting research and demonstration projects, 
                        or for providing technical assistance, in 
                        connection with activities described in section 
                        403(a)(2)(B). Funds appropriated under 
                        subparagraph (A) and expended in accordance 
                        with this clause shall be in addition to any 
                        other funds made available under this part for 
                        activities described in section 403(a)(2)(B).
            ``(2) Secretary's authority.--The Secretary may conduct 
        activities authorized by this subsection directly or through 
        grants, contracts, or interagency agreements with public or 
        private entities.
            ``(3) Requirement for use of funds.--The Secretary shall 
        not pay any funds appropriated under paragraph (1)(A) to an 
        entity for the purpose of conducting or supporting research and 
demonstration projects involving activities described in section 
403(a)(2)(B) unless the entity complies with the requirements of 
section 403(a)(2)(E).''.

SEC. 104. RESCISSION OF HIGH PERFORMANCE BONUS AND BONUS TO REWARD 
              DECREASE IN ILLEGITIMACY RATIO.

    (a) Rescission.--With respect to the amounts appropriated under 
paragraphs (2)(D) and (4)(F) of section 403(a) of the Social Security 
Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)), the amounts remaining available for obligation 
for any fiscal year after fiscal year 2004 are rescinded.
    (b) Budget Scoring.--Notwithstanding section 257(b)(2) of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 
907(b)(2)), the baseline shall assume that no bonus grants shall be 
made under section 403(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
603(a)(2)) (relating to bonuses to reward decreases in the illegitimacy 
ratio) or under section 403(a)(4) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(4)) 
(relating to high performance bonuses) after fiscal year 2004.
    (c) Application of Budget Savings.--Budget savings resulting from 
the application of subsections (a) and (b) shall be applied to offset 
the costs of making healthy marriage promotion grants under section 
403(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (as amended by section 101(b) of 
this Act), funding research, demonstrations, and technical assistance 
under section 413(k) of the Social Security Act (as added by section 
103 of this Act), and carrying out the responsible fatherhood program 
under part C of title IV of the Social Security Act (as added by 
section 102(a)(2) of this Act).

            TITLE II--EXTENSION OF TANF AND RELATED PROGRAMS

SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES 
              BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM THROUGH MARCH 31, 2005.

    (a) In General.--Activities authorized by part A of title IV of the 
Social Security Act, other than the activities authorized by sections 
403(a)(2) and 413(k) of such Act (as amended by sections 101(b) and 
103, respectively, of this Act), and by sections 510, 1108(b), and 1925 
of such Act, shall continue through March 31, 2005, in the manner 
authorized for fiscal year 2002, notwithstanding section 1902(e)(1)(A) 
of such Act, and out of any money in the Treasury of t