US SUPREME COURT, PARENTS ON TRIAL AGAIN: Loudermilks v. Joe Arpaio

FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

ON TRIAL AGAIN

WITH PARENTS

AND THE

US SUPREME COURT:

LOUDERMILK  V. JOSEPH ARPAIO 

 

US SUPREME COURT, PARENTS AND PRIVATE PROPERTY, “CHILDREN,” ON-TRIAL AGAIN

BUT WILL THEY “RAIN-IN KID GRABBING ENFORCERS”

ON FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

US CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS?

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

Regarding private property rights, one’s own body, “child” as mentioned by author above,  Read (Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)) ;  (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232, 32 L. Ed. 2d 15, 92 S. Ct. 1526 (1972)) ; and  (Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985))) ; (Board of Directors v. Rotary Club, 481 U.S. 537, 545, 107 S. Ct. 1940, 95 L. Ed. 2d 474 (1987))(quoting Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 619-20, 104 S. Ct. 3244, 82 L. Ed. 2d 462 (1984))(holding that “The First Amendment protects those relationships, including family relationships, that presuppose deep attachments and commitments to the necessarily few other individuals with whom one shares not only a special community of thoughts, experiences, and beliefs, but also distinctly personal aspects of one’s life”)), but not the incorrect Internet versions.  Read also natural, God-given rights and implied rights (Ninth Amendment, The u.S Constitution, 1776)(read note 3).

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

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

The Home School League Defense Association Team, initially lead by attorney Michael Farris and his crew, have managed to see this case through to the top in what has been what some might describe as a roller-coaster of a ride.  The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, for Arizona, overturned a great ruling by (Hon.) Judge Earl H. Carroll   in the case of parents John and Tiffany Loudermilk’s at the trial court level in 2007.  The case arose out of Sheriff Joseph/”Joe” Arpaio’s notorious Maricopa County.

 Click on t he link below to read  The Homeschool League Defense’s petition on writ of certiorari below, but for the parents.  Notably, each and every such association has consistently failed mothers and their healthy and he/r private property, “child.”  Reporters or editing censors for WND and The Houston Chronicle, and now, even The Houston Press, and even Randy Wallace also had the opportunity  to pick-up certain stories that it lost, for whatever un-reason.  For whatever other reasons, T.S. Radio Show and host, Marti Oakely and he/r  National Association Against Guardianship Abuse (“NASGA”) group did pick-up opportunities others evaded their duty to Americans to report the real truth, and all sides of it.

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

 It is this primarily First, Fourth Amendment , Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Thirteenth Amendment u.S Constitutional issue, and also natural and implied guaranteed “inalienable” and “unalienable” rights guaranteed, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” currently presented, on reverse and remand on subject matter jurisdiction, to the Federal US Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston division in the case possibly mislabeled or entered by clerks as “Saloom v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, et al” (4:13-cv-1002, US SDTX; read also USCA 13-20605, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals), currently stayed by order of Texas State  Attorney General’s Litigation Division and Texas District and County Clerk’s and Court Reporter/Recorder’s International Association, which has also wrongfully refused to enter police officers as defendants on the same docket on which they are substantively and properly included.  Read Croft v. Westmoreland County of Children and Youth Services, 103 F.3d 1123 (3d Cir. 1997) Doe v. Heck, 327 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2003).

God bless the real America, and especially the mothers and their private property described as “children” by profiteering “States” and clearly for profit “non-for-profit” “joint public-private” ventures all across America via the Federal Social Security Act, Titles IV-A, B, C, D, and E, and Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Marriage Initiative (read 42 U.S. Code § 603 – Grants to States); and Child Support Enforcement/Victim’s Assistance Programs, who, now more than ever, have earned the blessing by anyone’s “objective” standards (read  466(a)(15) of the Social Security Act) (grants to States to conduct demonstration projects to establish, in coordination with counties and other local or tribal governments, court-supervised or IV–D agency supervised-employment programs for noncustodial parents who have barriers to employment and a history of nonpayment of child support obligations, as determined by a court or the IV–D agency, and who are determined by the court or agency to be in need of employment services or placement in order to pay such child support obligations. A noncustodial parent described in the preceding sentence who is an ex-offender shall be eligible to participate in a program established under this subsection).

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

The following  cases need also be preserved for the next Nuremberg trials (though some nunc pro tunc, and already decided) of Amy and little Markel Charron (Harris County, Houston, Texas) Sandra/”Sam” Grazzini-Rucki and teenagers (Dakota County, MN), Kimberly Sperling (Minnesota), Leah Banken-Dannewitz and children (Carver County, Minnesota), Caroline Rice and children (Minnesota), Sunny Kelly and little Max (Connecticut), Lori Handrahan and little Mila (Maine), Sharon and Bill and little Donnelly Keaton Burns (Riverside County, California),  Miriam Blank and daughters, Kayla, Gabrielle, Zipporah, Daphna, and Hannah (Harris County, Houston, Texas and Utah), “Michelle” and Jack and Thomas Murphy (Newnan, Georgia, Coweta County), Rubi and little Lexi Dillon (Orange County, California), rather, “Tammy” and “Jonah” “Rief,” Mary Seguin (Rhode Island), Cherie Safapou and little Saam (Marin County, California), Linda Marie Sacks and daughters (Ormond Beach, Florida), Robin Carr and Laura and Matthew (Rockwall, TX, Dallas County, a Tyler, Texas substitute judge, and KY state police), Kathy Lee Schlopp and son (Rhode Island and Massachusetts state police),  Andrea Lebow and little Kendall (Amarillo, Potter County, Texas), Maribel Vega whose two children were pawned off on a man who wasn’t even their father (San Antonio, Texas, Bexar County), mother of, now gone, but not forgotten, little Logan Marr (Maine), “little angel,” now gone, but not forgotten, Anna Celeste Lowe  and he/r mother and brother who survive he/r (Louisiana), Tina Kufner (Harris County, Houston, Texas), EJ Perth; “Emily Court” (Minnesota);  Rebecca McLaughlin (Massachusetts), now passed, but not forgotten, little Buddy Cook and his foster family and natural mother (Cleburne, Texas), Karen Anderson (Davis, California); Deborah Lynne Connor (Tarrant County, Texas near Dallas/Fort Worth; Utah; Montana); Monika and little Dylan Wesolowski (Virginia, Illinois);  Susan Skipp (Connecticut); Melissa Harris (Connecticut); “J. Molly Murphy” and lost little boy (Texas); Megan and Baby Alexander (Connecticut); Kyla and Baby Lance (Washington State); “Mad Angel,” Angela and children (Washington State); Pamela and Will Gaston (Oregon); Emily Joy Lake and Mother; Justina Pelletier and family (Massachusetts); Stacy Lynn (Fort Collins, Colorado), Michelle Greaves (Massachusetts; New Jersey); Brittany; Maile and Hayden (Los Angeles, California); Karin Wolf (Monmouth County, New Jersey); Eileen Alintoff (Monmouth County, New Jersey);  Michelle Mammaro and little Daniella (Phillipsburg, New Jersey); Linda Wiegand and sons, one of whom is named “Ben” (Connecticut), Jennie Morton and he/r little children (Conroe, Montgomery County, Texas just north of Houston), Maile and little Hayden (California), now passed, but not forgotten, little “Lookie Pookie,” Luke Boruskiewicz and mother and father, Linda Jo Martin and lost child, Yvonne Mason, Connie Valentine, “Mississippi Mom” and lost daugher, Miranda’s mommy,  Trish Schaefer (Harris/Montgomery County, Houston, Texas),  now gone, but not forgotten, Kendrea Jackson, gone but not forgotten, and also he/r  mother and baby brother who survive he/r (Brooklyn Park, Minnesota),  mother Lacey Bahr Dryer, who it was recently reported took he/r own life because rogue social workers stole he/r children (Parma, Ohio), so many more, and especially dear to author of this blog’s heart, my little julian-jacob: of family saloom (Harris County, Houston, Brazoria County, Pearland and Tomball, Texas).

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

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

History of the Homeschool League Defense/Loudermilks’ Case 

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

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

Notes

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

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

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

Fair Use Notice and Disclaimer

(PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

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

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