Tuesday, December 18, 2018
Tuesday, December 4, 2018
Sunday, December 2, 2018
Wednesday, November 21, 2018
Right to be a parent Affadavit to file
DECLARATION OF MY RIGHT TO PARENT
I, _____________________________, declare by this affidavit that I have a
constitutionally protected right to parent my child and I have a constitutional right
of privacy regarding the affairs of my family and the medical treatment for myself
and my children.
The United States Supreme Court has held that parents have a constitutionally
protected liberty interest in the care, custody and management of their children.
See Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758-59, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 1397. "As a
general rule, therefore, before parents may be deprived of the care, custody or
management of their children without their consent, due process—ordinarily a
court proceeding resulting in an order permitting removal—must be accorded to
them." Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, 593 (2d Cir. 1999) (citing Stanley v.
Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 649, 92 S. Ct. 1208, 1212). "At the same time, however, the
State has a profound interest in the welfare of the child, particularly his or her
being sheltered from abuse." Id. at 593-94. Consequently, courts have recognized
that a state may constitutionally remove children threatened with imminent
harm when it is justified by emergency circumstances. See, e.g., Mabe v. San
Bernardino County, Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir.
2001); Brokaw v. Mercer County, 235 F.3d 1000, 1020 (7th Cir. 2000);
Tenenbaum, 193 F.3d at 593-94; Hollingsworth v. Hill, 110 F.3d 733, 739 (10th
Cir. 1997); Jordan by Jordan v. Jackson, 15 F.3d 333, 346 (4th Cir. 1994); United
States v. Edmondson, 791 F.2d 1512, 1514 (11th Cir. 1986) (allowing warrantless
search and seizure in criminal cases where exigent circumstances exist).
Parents have a fundamental right to the custody of their children, and the
deprivation of that right effects a cognizable injury. See Santosky v. Kramer, 455
U.S. 745, 758-59, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 1397.
In the protection of this fundamental right to parent, I should be afforded at a
minimum the constitutional protections afforded to a criminal defendant who faces
the loss of his fundamental loss of liberty in a criminal pro
includes, all state employees, all court appointed Guardian ad Litems, volunteer
advocates, and potential witnesses known to the prosecuting agency (or persons).
The right to choose the caretaker for my child, including relatives or friends,
during the pendency of the prosecution.
The right to choose an alternative ‘parent’ for my child, if the state so
decides that that my inability to parents poses an immediate and irreparable risk of
harm.
The right to have competent appointed counsel who will demand due
process and who is trained to protect the rights of parents.
The right to bring an action post termination if I so feel that my counsel has
been so incompetent as my constitutional rights were offended (such as a postconviction
relief petition provided for criminal defendants).
An absolute right to appeal.
The right to rehabilitate any shortcomings that I may have as a parent with
the assistance of professionals of my choosing, with a right to access to the funds
allowed for these services under Federal Funding grants.
The right to have the prosecutors of an action against be compelled to prove
each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt. (and not clear and convincing
evidence)
FURTHER, I declare that these rights are inalienable and endowed by our
Creator. As our Declaration of Independence stated in 1776, “That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and
to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness.
It is my declaration that the reliance and use of publicly funded mechanisms
intended to destroy my family relationships forever can only come from a despotic
government.
I DECLARE THESE RIGHTS.
______________________________
Signed Address:
_____________________
_____________________
___________________
I DECLARE THESE RIGHTS.
______________________________
Signed Address:
_____________________
_____________________
___________________
Thursday, November 15, 2018
Call the PA Attorney General
We, the keepers of law & order, don't take our oath lightly.
Law enforcement safeguards society & speaks truth to power.
Anyone who seeks to disturb the rule of law - upsetting the balance of justice for political purposes - will not succeed.
Stay tuned...
PA Office of Attorney General / Press Office
16th Floor, Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17120
16th Floor, Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Tuesday, November 13, 2018
Civil Rights Conspiract Statute
Judge ______ ________, and all actors acting under their direction and Oath of Office in the ___________ Court, in ___________ acted with full judicial cognizance that they were committing multiple felonies while acting in Executive, ministerial duties during case number _________, producing official documents requiring recording with public office , as incomplete written instrument. Any alleged order unsigned by a clerk and not entered is void, a forgery under 28 USC sec 1691 all writs from courts must have a judicial signature , all money judgments must be signed and entered by a clerk. All Orders require signature and entry with clerk, therefore all orders of Case Number _____________ are forgeries.
The persons in this felony criminal complaint have all knowingly
colluded to deprive the me of
protected rights and property issuing a false certificate, a
person is guilty of issuing a false
certificate when being a public servant
authorized by law to make or issue
official certificates or other official
written instruments which are court
orders also complaints with the intent
to defraud deceive or injure another
person he issues such an instrument or
makes the same with the intent that it
be used knowing that it contains a false
statement or false information official
misconduct he commits an act relating to
his official office but constituting an
unauthorized exercise of his official
functions knowing that such act is
unauthorized or he knowingly refrains
from performing a duty which is he is
required by law to perform .
colluded to deprive the me of
protected rights and property issuing a false certificate, a
person is guilty of issuing a false
certificate when being a public servant
authorized by law to make or issue
official certificates or other official
written instruments which are court
orders also complaints with the intent
to defraud deceive or injure another
person he issues such an instrument or
makes the same with the intent that it
be used knowing that it contains a false
statement or false information official
misconduct he commits an act relating to
his official office but constituting an
unauthorized exercise of his official
functions knowing that such act is
unauthorized or he knowingly refrains
from performing a duty which is he is
required by law to perform .
I, Donald Lee Faulkner, swear under the penalties for perjury, that everything alleged in this complaint to be the absolute truth. Signed _______ on _____________, 2018_____________________
Authorized signing agent printed name____________________
Authorized signing agent printed name____________________
Under Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute. Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime.
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.
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;...
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
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.
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;...
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Friday, November 9, 2018
Wednesday, October 24, 2018
Wednesday, October 17, 2018
Friday, October 12, 2018
Friday, October 5, 2018
Media Numbers
Mark Levin 1-877-381-3811
Bill O'Reilly bill@billoreilly.com
Sean Hannity 1-800-941-7326
Rush Limbaugh 800-282-2882
Glenn Beck 888-727-2325
Michael Savage 1-855-400-SAVAGE (7282)
Paul McGuire 800-227-5276 Paul@PaulMcGuire.us
Bill O'Reilly bill@billoreilly.com
Sean Hannity 1-800-941-7326
Rush Limbaugh 800-282-2882
Glenn Beck 888-727-2325
Michael Savage 1-855-400-SAVAGE (7282)
Paul McGuire 800-227-5276 Paul@PaulMcGuire.us
Rick Roberts RickRobertsShow@wbap.com (214) 526-2400
Mark Davis (866) 660-5759 markdavissho
Mark Davis (866) 660-5759 markdavissho
Former foster child sues county for alleged invasion of privacy
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/sd-me-privacy-lawsuit-20180810-story.html
A former foster child who is suing San Diego County for allegedly failing to protect him from years of sexual abuse by his former foster father has filed a new lawsuit accusing the government's attorneys of snooping through his confidential juvenile files without required court authorization.
A former foster child who is suing San Diego County for allegedly failing to protect him from years of sexual abuse by his former foster father has filed a new lawsuit accusing the government's attorneys of snooping through his confidential juvenile files without required court authorization.
Monday, October 1, 2018
New Budget gives more to steal children
Donald and Hillary, Together at Last!
Remember, you read it here first. I’ve discovered something on which President Trump and Hillary Clinton agree. No, really! I believe I’ve scooped all other media outlets on this one.
President Trump’s recently released budget includes massive increases in funding for what originated in the late 90s as a Hillary Clinton initiative, the Adoption and Safe Families Act. Read about that here (Chronicle of Social Change, 5/26/17).
President Donald Trump’s 2018 budget proposal includes a slate of deep cuts and eliminations of programs aimed at serving youth and families, but includes a hefty increase in the amount spent on an entitlement for foster care and adoption assistance.Notice that the moniker attached to all this is “child welfare.” It’s anything but. As readers of this blog probably recall, the ASFA is that magical piece of legislation that pays hefty bonuses to states to take children into foster care and then adopt them out of foster care. In short, it’s a bounty system for the destruction of families.
Title IV-E of the Social Security Act is an entitlement, which matches the cost of foster care services and adoption subsidies with state agencies. Trump’s budget proposal would boost spending to $5.5 billion for foster care and $2.9 billion for adoption.
The comparable levels in fiscal 2016 were $4.8 billion and $2.6 billion, meaning Trump has included $1 billion more for IV-E, a 13.5 percent increase.
Unquestionably, there are families that need to be broken up for the sake of the children’s health and well-being. But of course there were those families before the advent of the ASFA, child protective agencies knew about them and, to some extent, removed children who were in danger. But until the federal government started paying states to take kids from their parents, caseworkers could at least potentially make their decisions on the basis of their best estimate of the risk to the child.
Thanks to Clinton’s ASFA, federal largess was added as a factor in their decision-making. And guess what. Following the effective date of that law, CPS agencies started taking kids hand-over fist. Some years ago, I did a piece on the plight of indigenous American kids on whom the State of North Dakota had placed the label of “special needs” kids. That meant the state got even more money from Washington for taking them from their parents.
And sure enough, according to former state senator Bill Napoli,
"When that money came down the pike, it was huge," Napoli says. "That's when we saw a real influx of kids being taken out of families."That’s what Clinton did and what Trump is so enthusiastic about, he’s sharply increasing spending to continue doing it.
But make no mistake, these aren’t just any families that are being broken up. No, they’re the most vulnerable ones. Here’s perhaps one of the most reliable authorities on foster care and adoption, Richard Wexler, writing in 2016 (Daily Kos, 2/16/16).
The law is called the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA). But that’s one of those Orwellian titles Congress loves. It’s not about adoption and it’s not about safe families. Passed in 1997, one year after the welfare law, it had exactly the same target. ASFA was about demonizing impoverished women, especially women of color, and taking away their children.That’s just par for the course. I’ve said it many times – the child-protection system falls most heavily on those who don’t know their rights or are too poor to fight back. Just look at what happens when CPS targets the wrong family as it did in Maryland to Alexander and Danielle Meitiv two years ago. The parents were highly educated and affluent and didn’t take their outrageous treatment by Montgomery County CPS lying down. The last we heard, they’d filed a civil rights lawsuit against the agency, one they are all but certain to win.
So naturally, those most impacted by the ASFA are the poor and of course indigenous Americans.
Here’s what ASFA did:It did that in part by resort to an absurdly flawed assumption – that there was an army of well-to-do but childless parents abroad in the land just waiting to adopt children. That of course was belied by the fact that only about 75,000 stranger adoptions are completed in this country in any given year, despite there being over 400,000 kids in foster care. Clinton, apparently working on the “if you build it they will come” theory, figured putting more kids in care would somehow result in more of them being adopted out of it. That of course made no sense and predictably didn’t work.
ASFA encouraged a take-the-child-and-run mentality on the frontlines of child welfare. Thousands more families, overwhelmingly poor and disproportionately families of color, were destroyed by wrongful removal of the children.
Instead of reducing the foster care population, ASFA increased it, trapping thousands more children in a system that, according to one major study, churns out walking wounded four times out of five.
So even as child abuse continued to decline, the number of children in foster care on any given day kept increasing, peaking in 1999. It didn’t fall below the number when ASFA became law until 2003. The number of children taken away over the course of a year kept increasing until 2006. Now, after slow declines, both figures are increasing again.In other words, we have the worst of both worlds – too many kids taken from their parents and too few of them adopted. That’s what Hillary Clinton started and Donald Trump is doubling down.
Notwithstanding all the talk, and the bounties, adoptions increased marginally, while the number of “legal orphans” children who languish in foster care for years and then “age out” with no home at all, soared 40 percent.
Bi-partisanship – ain’t it grand?
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
Overview of Provisions in the Family First Prevention Services Ac
https://www.alliance1.org/web/news/2018/feb/overview-provisions-family-first-prevention-services-act.aspx
Alliance Headquarters
The Alliance headquarters also houses the Public Policy and Mobilization Office.
1825 K St. N.W., Suite 600
Washington, DC 20006
Washington, DC 20006
Monday, September 17, 2018
Monday, September 10, 2018
Saturday, September 8, 2018
Statutes of Limitation Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Litigation: The Law of Section 1983
https://nahmodlaw.com/2011/10/27/a-section-1983-primer-5-statutes-of-limitations/
A Section 1983 Primer (5): Statutes of Limitation
Introduction
This is the fifth of my section 1983 primers. I previously blogged on section 1983’s history and purposes (post of 10-29-09); on Monroe v. Pape (post of 11-29-09); on constitutional states of mind (post of 2-6-10); and on causation in fact and the Mt. Healthy burden-shift rule (post of 4-25-10).
This post addresses the important, and threshold, question of statutes of limitations in section 1983 cases.
The Basics
Because section 1983 does not have its own statute of limitations, it is “deficient” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. section 1988. Under the provisions of that statute, where federal law is deficient, federal courts are to apply the relevant law of the forum state, unless the relevant law of the forum state is inconsistent with federal law or policy or discriminates against federal claims.
As a consequence of section 1988, statutes of limitations issues arising in section 1983 cases constitute an unusual amalgam of federal and state law regarding the choice of the proper limitations period, accrual and tolling.
Sunday, September 2, 2018
Are Hospitals and Child Protective Services Conspiring to Kidnap Children?
http://www.truthlibrary.info/articles/corporate-fraud/are-hospitals-and-child-protective-services-conspiring-to-kidnap-children/
Beware in Berks County caseworkers are on duty at both hospitals 24-7
Beware in Berks County caseworkers are on duty at both hospitals 24-7
THE HIGH COST OF FIGHTING FOR YOUR CHILD
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/3women3ways/2018/09/01/the-high-cost-of-fighting-for-your-child
THE HIGH COST OF FIGHTING FOR YOUR CHILD
Imagine you have been the primary care taker for your child. You make sure they are clean and groomed, their homework gets done, they have all the right doctors’ appointments, they are eating right. You are highly tuned to sense any problems, or adjustment issues, and you make sure your child is getting what he or she needs from you. Now imagine you have been cut out of their lives. Imagine the high cost of fighting for your child.
You risk financial ruin, and emotional costs that anyone in your situation cannot begin to understand. Sometimes you even risk your freedom.
Jon Moseley, Virginia attorney, Michael Volpe, author and reporter, and Natalia, a woman who was jailed for talking to her son’s doctor, come on the show to talk about the risks and costs, and the injustice of these situations when courts can seemingly arbitrarily, take away custody, visitation, even freedom, in cases where there are custody disputes.
Join us as an attorney, a victim and a mother share one story that is repeated much too often in courts across the country.
Airing for the first time Saturday, September 1, at 11 AM Pacific Time, and available thereafter through the archive at www.blogtalkradio.com/3women3ways
Friday, August 31, 2018
Wednesday, August 29, 2018
Sample of a Federal Civil Suit
https://www.scribd.com/document/387185904/Schwab-Civil-Rights-Lawsuit-2018
I am not an attorney. With zero legal training and alot of prayer we created this complaint and hope that we can look back at this one day knowing we held those accountable who are trafficking children under the color of law. So as you read this. Know we did the best we could. It is hard to find attorney's who are willing to take these criminals on. And don't think it can't happen to you. If you allow this to happen to your neighbor, your fellow citizen without a demand for substantiation at the evil allegations DCF makes as a policy and practice, then be assured that one day this will come to your door as well. May we return to the spirit of liberty, and may God grant us victory in this fight.
Copyright: © All Rights Reserved
Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
File a Complaint on your Case
http://www.uscourts.gov/contact-usClick the link
How to contact us?
Contact your local federal court or state court directly if you're looking for information on:
- A specific court case.
- Handling jury matters.
- Attorney admissions and bar memberships.
- Naturalizations.
Find the address and phone number of your local federal court using the Court Locator.
Sens A Complaint on Bad Judge
http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/judicial-administration/administrative-oversight-and-accountability
Click the link
Click the link
Administrative Oversight and Accountability
Oversight mechanisms work together to hold judges and judiciary staff responsible for their conduct as government officials and for the management of public resources.
Accountability is a core value of the federal judiciary, as stated in the Strategic Plan for the Federal Judiciary, encompassing:
- stringent standards of conduct;
- self-enforcement of legal and ethical rules;
- good stewardship of public funds and property; and
- effective and efficient use of resources.
Federal Judiciary oversight mechanisms deter and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse, and address mistakes should they occur. Oversight mechanisms also promote compliance with ethical, statutory, and regulatory standards. By statute, responsibility for administering the Third Branch rests with the Judicial Conference of the United States, regional circuit judicial councils, the individual courts themselves, and, in specified areas, the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO). Internal safeguards exist at the local, regional, and national levels to deter waste and wrongdoing, and enable detailed performance assessments.
Monday, August 27, 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
