Thursday, June 21, 2018

Letter by Connie Reguli Please Feel Free to Copy and Share

I shared this with the Reading Eagle.  They have yet to print it.
I have submitted the following to the Tennessean, New York Post and Washington post. 
Please feel free to copy and upload to your local papers.
Main stream media cannot get past this narrative that it is cruel and inhuman to remove immigrant children from their parents when they cross the Mexican border illegally. On any given day of the year 500,000 American children are living away from their parents in the legal custody of the government and in the homes of strangers called “foster parents?” The government statistics show that 85% of these children were removed from their homes under vague allegations of neglect or lack of supervision and the factual basis may be because the parents refused vaccines or sought a second medical opinion; a child is late for school, misses a doctor’s appointment, or plays outside. 
More important is understanding the federal funding scheme that provides the financial incentives to remove children from their parents and keep them in foster care far beyond the time the parents may need to rehabilitate. 
Parental rights are terminated by the Court and the foster parents adopt the children. After adoption, the foster parents continue to receive the $3,000 per month until kids reach 18 years old. This is a whole new government dependency sub-group in the name of best interest of the children. The children are the victims of social engineering. The narrative that it is wrong to remove children from the parents deserves a much broader and comprehensive discussion than children removed at the border. 
The child removal business is well over twenty billion dollars a year. And, just like the military and the prisons, it is a well-oiled private industry with over 114 lobbyists in Washington. Stop removing children from parents. It is another chapter in American human rights violations. 
Connie Reguli 
615 661 0122
Family Forward Project on Facebook

Federal Medical Assistance Percentage for Medicaid per State

The amount of Federal payments to a State for medical services depends on two factors. The first is the actual amount spent that qualifies as matchable under Medicaid and the FMAP. The Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) is computed from a formula that takes into account the average per capita income for each State relative to the national average. By law, the FMAP cannot be less than 50%. For more information, please see the KFF policy brief Medicaid Financing: An Overview of the Federal Medicaid Matching Rate (FMAP), September 2012.
The multiplier is based on the FMAP. For every dollar the state spends on Medicaid, the federal government matches at a rate that varies year to year. For FY2004, the rate for Alabama was 1:2.80 (73.70%). For information about the multiplier effect of Medicaid spending, see The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid's policy brief released in December 2008, Role of Medicaid in State Economies: A Look at the Research.

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

Deprivation Color of LAW Filing

Judy Schwank Bill

Please Read...More People on the Front Lines of this Crisis

​​​Hi. My name is Tim Shilling. I am Co- President of Family Civil Liberties Union in Pennsylvania. I am a parent in Pennsylvania that would like to discuss with all of you, an opportunity to meet with myself and other parents in Pennsylvania regarding the issues below.   

LAURIE NICHOLSON is a mother of four that will also be also sending emails to each and every representative in Pennsylvania, Senator, Auditor/ Attorney General and Governor of the serious problem in Pennsylvania. Please do not ignore.

There are 25 million Americans that have been disconnected from their children, (an average of 50 million children have been affected) and when they ask for help everyone claims that this is a Family Court matter and can’t be involved.

Recent news reports show Immigrants coming into this country are having their children taken away from them. When is our government going to recognize there are children being taken away from loving parents and other loved ones in the United States???

Thanks to the dedication of one parent that has been alienated from three children herself, in Erie County, Pennsylvania, by the name of LAURIE NICHOLSON brought parental alienation and hostile aggressive parenting awareness and education to the attention of  PA  Representative Ryan Bizzarro.

Thanks to the tireless effort’s of the Honorable Bizzarro, for recognizing this form of child abuse and has recently created  House Resolution 937. This resolution is designating the week of June 3 through June 9 of 2018, as Parental Alienation and Hostile Aggressive Parenting Awareness week in Pennsylvania.

These are all the representatives that have taken the first step to make Pennsylvania great again for the American families and our children, Bizzarro, Readshaw, Hen
nessey, Toohil, Vitali, Dash,
Sonney, Schlossberg, Solomon, Ryan, Neilson, Millard, DiGirolamo, Caltagiroe, Kauffman, Watson and Kinsey.

We as parents in Pennsylvania, want to thank each and every representative that have shown an interest in the well-being of our children.

This is the first of many steps that need to be taken in Pennsylvania to be the leader in the nation of this serious problem. 

Too many times good parents have been denied their rights to be heard, been denied the right to show truthful evidence, have been falsely accused to gain leverage over the other parent. Most of these parents have never had any encounters with the law, but sadly in the beginning when parents are naïve they are created to be the target. This happens in most cases when the parent enters the family court or other entities.

These parents will now be perceived to be bad parents that will be put through unnecessary litigation, reunification counseling, supervise visits that create income for the county. Once you have been targeted there is no help, the system is simply refusing to follow the law and refusing to do their job that have put a greater burden on the court system. There is no accountability

Once a parent complaints and files a complaint they are subjected to discrimination, biased and prejudice decisions. Their complaints will be ignored.

I will explain this to you in a different approach how important it is for our judiciary to do their job and to follow the law.

Let’s say the people of Pennsylvania elected a garbage man.  This garbage man has taken a sworn oath of office to uphold and support his duties to ensure garbage is picked up in Pennsylvania.

The garbage man has now been elected by the people and paid by the people. The garbage man now creates certain laws and immunities for the garbageman.

Then one day the garbage man decides that he doesn’t have to pick up garbage anymore.

Now the people that voted for the garbage man are not getting their garbage picked up.

The community calls their representatives and senators to find out why they are not picking up their garbage.

They are informed that the garbage man has certain immunities and their complaints will have to go to the garbageman society for review.

Know the community starts to file complaints against the garbage man, the complaints are dismissed and denied because the garbage man has certain immunities to protect garbage man from doing their job.

Now the community gets frustrated so they start putting garbage on their neighbors lawn, the other neighbor sees the community member and threatens violence, a altercation takes place and the community member is now in jail.

The community member has to hire an attorney and now is forced to pay fines and fees because this garbage man created conflict and refuses to do his job.

The whole process started because the garbageman decided not to do his job and was immune from any prosecution from many bad decisions.The community called to seek help and no one would help them stating it is the garbageman society and they can’t get involved.

The whole series of events shows a complete breakdown of the system. Individuals that hold title of nobility and is acting in bad behavior of his/her duty of a garbage man.

The Governing bodies in Pennsylvania do have every legal right to engage to correct the misconduct of the garbage man.

The garbage man is using his immunity status to keep from being prosecuted.

The garbage man is not acting in good behavior and can only hold a term no longer then his good behavior allows by the Constitution.

The Pennsylvania Constitution under Article 1 Section 24; The legislator shall not grant any title of nobility of hereditary distinction, nor create any Office the appointment which shall be for a longer term then during good behavior.

With the current events of the gerrymandering in Pennsylvania, this has shown the people of Pennsylvania the process of impeaching numerous judges. This too, has caused a ripple affect like I have described above.

Also, with the current events in Pennsylvania, this has shown where a father was put in jail for many years over false accusations and it wasn’t until the child was old enough to tell the truth about what the other parent did, to obtain custody. This is how easy it is for a parent to be set up over false accusations, to maliciously disconnect a parent and all their loved ones from their child and destroy the parents life!

This father spent many years in prison because of false accusations,according to the report -no one would listen to him or help him.This is happening every day in Pennsylvania and throughout the country.

There is a great urgency for changes to be made against any individual that suppresses evidence and should be prosecuted to the full list extent of the law for this misconduct.

This fact can also be proven in the recent events in Cambria County Pennsylvania,where a man was falsely accused of murdering his wife and was imprisoned because noble figures suppressed evidence.No man/woman should be above the law.   

Another incident in Pennsylvania, was when a District Attorney was suppressing evidence, known to be official oppression and many other crimes under the criminal code. This is exactly what is happening in the Family Court system today and other entities. Most targeted parents can prove without a reasonable doubt, that their evidence is being suppressed and no one will help them.

The kids for cash scandal in Pennsylvania should’ve taught us that it is more important to protect families and children then to allow individuals to engage in using our children to create income for profit. Please keep in mind it was one individual that refused to give up that brought attention to this scandal in Pennsylvania.

The Title 4 D and E funding is being used for improper purposes costing the taxpayers billions of dollars.

There are many skeptics that claim Parental Alienation doesn’t exist. They even claim that it is "junk science" that it is not recognized by the family courts or psychologists. The simple fact of the matter is, it does exist but nobody wants to recognize it. They would rather ignore it and say that it is a Family Court matter...

I, as a parent and many other parents in Pennsylvania would like to see changes such as judges, attorneys, psychologists, social workers, CPS,CYS, OCY all to be trained in recognizing this serious form of abuse of a child, when the parent is no longer allowed to be in their lives due to false accusations and is forced to pay to see their own child.

Dr. Childress is an expert that has already provided this information in front of the Pennsylvania Children and Youth Committee on November 17, 2017.

I have provided you a slideshow of over 400 families that have been disconnected from their children.  This includes mothers, fathers, siblings, grandparents and relatives. For every one photo that you see in the slideshow, there around 60,000 you don’t see, just in the United States alone. Please look at the faces. These pictures tell their story.

In the upcoming weeks, there is a rally in Pennsylvania, by the Fathers Rights Movement. This group is trying to promote changes deemed necessary for our children and the equality of parents rights. A CHILD DESERVES THE RIGHT TO LOVE AND RECEIVE LOVE FROM BOTH PARENTS!

A chain reaction has been occurring over the years, when individuals are targeted. They are tortured with years of litigation.

This legal abuse creates increased suicide rates, incarceration that overcrowd the prisons, poverty, bankruptcy,and depression.

Pennsylvania is ripe for change,  to encourage relationships with children instead of disconnecting families for profit.

The way the system is set up today, it is only hurting the welfare of our children and destroying the American family, one parent and each family member at a time.

If you are a parent that went through this same scenario,as stated above, where your rights were denied to see your own child or you were forced to pay numerous fees that are created under falsification and no one would help you, what would you do as a parent?

Please help parents,children and their loved ones in Pennsylvania.

Thank you for your time,
Sincerely, Timothy M Shilling 

Contact information
1203 Philadelphia Ave.
Northern Cambria PA 15714

Executive Director of Parental Alienation Awareness, PA

Find Your States US Attorney General-Enforcement of Civil Rights

 U.S. Attorneys

We need to get an Executive Order Signed by the President

Proposed Executive Order which will, in effect, be an Emancipation Proclamation for the 21st Century
Executive Order to
Restore integrity to State Courts
In response to thousands of meritorious complaints that I have received, from The American People, from all over the nation, since taking office as your President, I am issuing this very belated Executive Order.
For decades, numerous lower court judges have issued court orders that Violate the Rights of Americans. Each such illicit court order is a clear cut Felony Committed by the judge pursuant to US Code Title 18, Section 242.
Although the law is crystal clear and easily understood, the aforementioned violations have continued unabated. The results of these Crimes Against The People have been horrendous. These Abominations have been especially prevalent in the "family courts".
The Social Carnage of which I spoke in my inaugural address has destroyed the lives of millions of American Citizens. Millions of American Children have been wrongfully taken, Under Color Of Law, from fit parents. The parents have become financially destitute in their futile efforts to rescue their children from the foster care industry. Many have become homeless and many have committed suicide.
Not only have the Mothers and Fathers Committed suicide, many of the children who have been physically, sexually and chemically abused in foster care have also Committed suicide.
This very dark chapter in American History is going to come to an end, so help me God.
The numerous violations of the Rights of The People have enabled the "Family Court Racket" to operate for decades. Motivation for this ongoing Criminal Enterprise has been monetary. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been taken from the Social Security Trust Fund to finance this Criminality.
Draining the Social Security Trust Fund, in effect, is stealing the retirement of the younger generation of Americans.
I am hereby ordering vigorous enforcement of Federal Criminal Complaints submitted to Federal Magistrate Judges in conjunction with Rules 3 and 4 of The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, pursuant to US Code Title 18, Section 242.
The Supremacy Clause for the Consitution Of The United States shall nullify any attempt to circumvent, abrogate or violate the Consitutionally Protected Rights of The American People.
Any non-compliance with this order will be ample grounds for removal of any judge who is guilty of Obstruction Of Justice, Dereliction Of Duty, Malfeasance, Misfeasance or Nonfeasance. Any such offender will also be Indicted and Prosecuted.
Signed ...........................................
                    Donald J. Trump
         President of the United States
Date ..........................
Let it be known that I endorse and support the Proposed Executive Order for President Trump. Signing this order will be an enormous service rendered by the President for The American People.
If you endorse the Proposed Executive Order, please sign and email it to Pamela Olson at :

Exhibit  A -
  U.S. Code Title 18 Section 242
Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the
acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties.
Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the
circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
Exhibit B -
The Federal Rules
Of Criminal Procedure
Rule 3. The Complaint
The complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. Except as provided in Rule
4.1, it must be made under oath before a magistrate judge or, if none is reasonably available, before a state or local
judicial officer.
Rule 4. Arrest Warrant or Summons on a Complaint
(a) Issuance. If the complaint or one or more affidavits filed with the complaint establish probable cause to believe that an
offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it, the judge must issue an arrest warrant to an officer
authorized to execute it. At the request of an attorney for the government, the judge must issue a summons, instead of a
warrant, to a person authorized to serve it. A judge may issue more than one warrant or summons on the same complaint.
If a defendant fails to appear in response to a summons, a judge may, and upon request of an attorney for the
government must, issue a warrant.
Exhibit C -
The Supremacy Clause
The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.[1] It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law.[2] In essence, it is a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain national acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with national law. In this respect, the Supremacy Clause follows the lead of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which provided that "Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress Assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them."[3] A constitutional provision announcing the supremacy of federal law, the Supremacy Clause assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, at least when that authority is expressed in the Constitution itself.[4] No matter what the federal government or the states might wish to do, they have to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. This makes the Supremacy Clause the cornerstone of the whole American political structure.[5][6]
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Preemption doctrineEdit
The constitutional principle derived from the Supremacy Clause is federal preemption. Preemption applies regardless of whether the conflicting laws come from legislatures, courts, administrative agencies, or constitutions. For example, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, an act of Congress, preempts state constitutions, and Food and Drug Administration regulations may preempt state court judgments in cases involving prescription drugs.
Congress has preempted state regulation in many areas. In some cases, such as the 1976 Medical Device Regulation Act, Congress preempted all state regulation. In others, such as labels on prescription drugs, Congress allowed federal regulatory agencies to set national minimum standards, but did not preempt state regulations imposing more stringent standards than those imposed by federal regulators. Where rules or regulations do not clearly state whether or not preemption should apply, the Supreme Court tries to follow lawmakers’ intent, and prefers interpretations that avoid preempting state laws.[7]
Supreme Court interpretationsEdit
In Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796), the United States Supreme Court for the first time applied the Supremacy Clause to strike down a state statute. Virginia had passed a statute during the Revolutionary War allowing the state to confiscate debt payments by Virginia citizens to British creditors. The Supreme Court found that this Virginia statute was inconsistent with the Treaty of Paris with Britain, which protected the rights of British creditors. Relying on the Supremacy Clause, the Supreme Court held that the treaty superseded Virginia's statute, and that it was the duty of the courts to declare Virginia's statute "null and void".
In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), the Supreme Court held that Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the Judicial system to interpret what the Constitution permits. Citing the Supremacy Clause, the Court found Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 to be unconstitutional to the extent it purported to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution.
In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816), and Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821), the Supreme Court held that the Supremacy Clause and the judicial power granted in Article III give the Supreme Court the ultimate power to review state court decisions involving issues arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Therefore, the Supreme Court has the final say in matters involving federal law, including constitutional interpretation, and can overrule decisions by state courts.
In McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819), the Supreme Court reviewed a tax levied by Maryland on the federally incorporated Bank of the United States. The Court found that if a state had the power to tax a federally incorporated institution, then the state effectively had the power to destroy the federal institution, thereby thwarting the intent and purpose of Congress. This would make the states superior to the federal government. The Court found that this would be inconsistent with the Supremacy Clause, which makes federal law superior to state law. The Court therefore held that Maryland's tax on the bank was unconstitutional because the tax violated the Supremacy Clause.
In Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.
In Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (1956) the Supreme Court struck down the Pennsylvania Sedition Act, which made advocating the forceful overthrow of the federal government a crime under Pennsylvania state law. The Supreme Court held that when federal interest in an area of law is sufficiently dominant, federal law must be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject; and a state law is not to be declared a help when state law goes farther than Congress has seen fit to go.
In Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), the Supreme Court held that the U.S. Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.
In Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958), the Supreme Court rejected attempts by Arkansasto nullify the Court's school desegregation decision, Brown v. Board of Education. The state of Arkansas, acting on a theory of states' rights, had adopted several statutes designed to nullify the desegregation ruling. The Supreme Court relied on the Supremacy Clause to hold that the federal law controlled and could not be nullified by state statutes or officials.
In Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled: "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute". In effect, this means that a State law will be found to violate the Supremacy Clause when either of the following two conditions (or both) exist:[8]
Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible"State law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress"
In 1920, the Supreme Court applied the Supremacy Clause to international treaties, holding in the case of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, that the Federal government's ability to make treaties is supreme over any state concerns that such treaties might abrogate states' rights arising under the Tenth Amendment.
The Supreme Court has also held that only specific, "unmistakable" acts of Congress may be held to trigger the Supremacy Clause. Montana had imposed a 30 percent tax on most sub-bituminous coal mined there. The Commonwealth Edison Company and other utility companies argued, in part, that the Montana tax "frustrated" the broad goals of the national energy policy. However, in the case of Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S. 609 (1981), the Supreme Court disagreed. Any appeal to claims about "national policy", the Court said, were insufficient to overturn a state law under the Supremacy Clause unless "the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion, or that the Congress has unmistakably so ordained".[9]
However, in the case of California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93 (1989), the Supreme Court held that if Congress expressedly intended to act in an area, this would trigger the enforcement of the Supremacy Clause, and hence nullify the state action. The Supreme Court further found in Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530U.S. 363 (2000), that even when a state law is not in direct conflict with a federal law, the state law could still be found unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause if the "state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of Congress's full purposes and objectives".[10] Congress need not expressly assert any preemption over state laws either, because Congress may implicitly assume this preemption under the Constitution.[11]
Preemption can be either express or implied.  When Congress chooses to expressly preempt state law, the only question for courts becomes determining whether the challenged state law is one that the federal law is intended to preempt.  Implied preemption presents more difficult issues, at least when the state law in question does not directly conflict with federal law.  The Court then looks beyond the express language of federal statutes to determine whether Congress has "occupied the field" in which the state is attempting to regulate, or whether a state law directly conflicts with federal law, or whether enforcement of the state law might frustrate federal purposes.
Exhibit D -
The judicial tyranny of which Thomas Jefferson and Pattrick Henry warned has come to pass.
Signing this Executive Order will solve that Monumental Problem.

Enforcing your Civil Rights