Our Grand Children are victims of;

"Protect the "system" at all costs. The "system" is the only ultimate sacred cow - not any particular law or constitution, but only "the system." Because, ultimately, it is the system which makes certain that the individuals functioning within it - from judges to lawyers, to prosecutors, to politicians, to businessmen - have their places and positions, and opportunities and pecking order, and future."

In 1696, England first used the legal principle of parens patriae, which gave the royal crown care of "charities, infants, idiots, and lunatics returned to the chancery." This principal of parens patriae has been identified as the statutory basis for U.S. governmental intervention in families' child rearing practices.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Preamble of the original "organic" Constitution

"We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; 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 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."
Excerpted from the Declaration of Independence of the original thirteen united states of America, July 4, 1776


Saturday, March 31, 2012

Reactive Attachment Disorder


Reactive attachment disorder

By Mayo Clinic staff

Original Article:  http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/reactive-attachment-disorder/DS00988

Definition

Reactive attachment disorder is a rare but serious condition in which infants and young children don't establish healthy bonds with parents or caregivers.
A child with reactive attachment disorder is typically neglected, abused or orphaned. Reactive attachment disorder develops because the child's basic needs for comfort, affection and nurturing aren't met and loving, caring attachments with others are never established. This may permanently change the child's growing brain, hurting the ability to establish future relationships.
Reactive attachment disorder is a lifelong condition, but with treatment children can develop more stable and healthy relationships with caregivers and others. Safe and proven treatments for reactive attachment disorder include psychological counseling and parent or caregiver education.

Symptoms

Reactive attachment disorder begins before age 5. Signs and symptoms of the disorder may begin when the child is still an infant.
Signs and symptoms in babies may include:
  • Withdrawn, sad and listless appearance
  • Failure to smile
  • Lack of the normal tendency to follow others in the room with the eyes
  • Failure to reach out when picked up
  • No interest in playing peekaboo or other interactive games
  • No interest in playing with toys
  • Engaging in self-soothing behavior, such as rocking or self-stroking
  • Calm when left alone
Signs and symptoms in toddlers, older children and adolescents may include:
  • Withdrawing from others
  • Avoiding or dismissing comforting comments or gestures
  • Acting aggressively toward peers
  • Watching others closely but not engaging in social interaction
  • Failing to ask for support or assistance
  • Obvious and consistent awkwardness or discomfort
  • Masking feelings of anger or distress
  • Alcohol or drug abuse in adolescents
As children with reactive attachment disorder grow older, they may develop either inhibited or disinhibited behavior patterns. While some children have signs and symptoms of just one type of behavior, many exhibit both types.
  • Inhibited behavior. Children with inhibited behavior shun relationships and attachments to virtually everyone. This may happen when a baby never has the chance to develop an attachment to any caregiver.
  • Disinhibited behavior. Children with disinhibited behavior seek attention from virtually everyone, including strangers. This may happen when a baby has multiple caregivers or frequent changes in caregivers. Children with this type of reactive attachment disorder may frequently ask for help doing tasks, have inappropriately childish behavior or appear anxious.
There's little research on signs and symptoms of reactive attachment disorder beyond early childhood. It may lead to controlling, aggressive or delinquent behaviors, trouble relating to peers, and other problems. While treatment can help children and adults cope with reactive attachment disorder, the changes that occur during early childhood are permanent and the disorder is a lifelong challenge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Still think snatching kids for a living isn't child abuse? Best interest for the child? Child Protective Services? One would have to [literally] be brain dead not to see the harm done by social services, CPS or what ever name change they use to protect the guilty. Let's not forget the other group. One group steals the kids... the other group makes it look legal. They all make tons of money... damn the kids.


*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

DIRTY TRICK #10

DIRTY TRICK #10

When Child Protective Services takes your children they will do everything they can to keep them…be they biological or foster children already in the system. If they are foster children being moved from one home to another this is just one more disruption in the child’s life and one more reason for the children to add insecurity to their baggage. Once foster children are removed from a home they are not often returned. Social workers dilly-dally around and give one excuse after another to keep the children and these foster caretakers apart for an extended length of time. During this time they allow “no contact” between you and the children so it is natural that the children feel rejected and that you don’t care about them any longer. Then the caseworkers tell you that the child has formed a bond with the new foster caretakers and that your bond has been broken, so they have decided not to return the children to your home.
DCFS/CPS/DSS [OCS] can make a “ton of money” by keeping these children in the system as long as they can. Children whose parents rights have been terminated and have settled into a structured, secure life in a foster home are offered for adoption and quite often it is the foster caretakers who apply to adopt them. More often than not, this is when difficulties occur because the system stands to lose money once these children are adopted out. As long as they have these children in “captivity” they can leverage large amounts of state and federal cash from a number of different programs. Now, this author fully realizes that there are definitely those children out there that need the services of the Child Protective Services due to truly coming from an abusive, dangerous situation, but this is not always the case. Those children who truly need these services should receive any and all protection afforded them and they are the ones who need a new home and a loving family, but social services even fights to deny them this right. Frequently it is the foster/adopt family that faces these “false allegation” difficulties because the system fully realizes that once these children are adopted out of the system they will lose major funding and this could mean a loss of jobs or programs or worse. It has been documented that a truly needy child in the system can earn the system up to $250,000 a year in government money. Now answer me this…Who in their right mind would give up easy cash such as this?

 Source: http://www.nfpcar.org/References/DirtyTricks.htm

*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Friday, March 30, 2012

Citizen Review Panel, Alaska

 Citizen Review Panel, Alaska

 Brief Description:
 Alaska has one Citizen Review Panel which started around 2003.   The Panel has a chair and vice-chair.  Staffing is provided through a contract with an outside agency.
Other Information: Alaska’s CRP got off to a slow start, as initially the Panel received no funding. This made it challenging to serve a state that is equal in size to 20% of the contiguous U.S.  There are many challenges trying to serve such a large area, much of which is not connected by roads.

Sample of Current Work Projects/Focus:
• Relationship between Office of Children’s Services and foster parents
• Relationship between Office of Children’s Services and tribal entities

Website:  www.crpalaska.org
Started in: 2003
Annual Report Submitted:  June 30,
response due from state within 6 months
Total Members:  Currently 8, hoping to
add a member from Southwest Alaska

Budget Amount and Source:  $110,000 from state general funds.  Information Insights is
contracted through Alaska’s child welfare agency to provide program coordination.

 Started in: 2003
Annual Report Submitted:  June 30,
response due from state within 6 months
Total Members:  Currently 8, hoping to
add a member from Southwest Alaska


Contact Information:
Sylvan Robb
Senior Consultant at Information
Insights
Coordinator for Citizen Review Panel
212 Front Street, Suite 100
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
(907) 450-2456
sylvan@iialaska.com



Source: Citizen Review Panel National Directory of States

Membership and Staff Support 

Required membership  The Panel shall be composed of volunteer members who are broadly representative of the state, including members who have expertise in the prevention and treatment of child abuse and

neglect. 

Current membership


Susan Heuer, Chair, Anchorage
Bonnie Edmondson, North Pole
Dana W. Hallett, Haines
Kristin Hull, Wasilla
Steve McComb, Palmer
Stella Schuchardt, Fairbanks 


Former members who left the group during this reporting period 


Arthur Hansen, Fairbanks
George Kirchner, Fairbanks
Ralph Taylor, Eagle River
Fred Van Wallinga, Willow 


Desired membership  The CRP would like to meet its requirement to be broadly
representative of the state by widening the geographic and racial and ethnic diversity of
the membership.  The group is working to recruit new members from underrepresented
areas of the state as well as a greater diversity of child-centered expertise and backgrounds.



Source: Citizen Review Panel Annual Report (2011 Annual Report)


My question would be... who is reviewing the Citizens Review Panel? I have seen plenty of evidence that this state has MANY good ol' boys clubs. Who's watching the watchers?
The Citizen Review Panels (all three) should be treated like jury duty. Normal citizens picked for Review duty. Never the same ones twice. 
--------------------------------------------------------------
Never doubt that a small, dedicated group of citizens can make a difference.  Indeed,
it is the only thing that ever has…..
                                                     ~ Margaret Mead

--------------------------------------------------------------


I might ad that, that small, dedicated group of citizens find what and who they are dedicated to.


*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Thursday, March 29, 2012

AFCARS report/ Citizen Review Panel of OCS/ Form 29-C

 1974 Walter Mondale initiated CAPTA (the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act), the legislation that began feeding federal funding into the state’s child welfare agencies.

 With remarkable foresight Mondale expressed concerns that the legislation could lead to systemic abuse in that the state agencies might over-process children into the system unnecessarily to keep, and increase, the flow of federal dollars.

 Shortly after CAPTA was enacted there was a dramatic increase in the number of children in foster care, peaking at around 500,000 during the mid-70’s.

 An official at the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare admitted that the government had no idea where many of the nation’s 500,000 foster children where living, what services they were receiving, if any, or if any efforts were being made to reunite them with their families.

 1980 the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, P.L. 96-272, was enacted. The act included provisions that “reasonable efforts” be made to prevent children from being unnecessarily removed from their homes and placed in foster care. Although CPS has always tried to buffalo the media and the public that they are involved with families due to some sort of horrific child abuse or neglect, there has never been any debate among national policy makers, researchers, and federal agencies that the vast majority of CPS cases are due to poverty or frivolous/social reasons and do not contain elements of real child abuse. If the cases did actually involve acts of abuse they would be criminal, identified and investigated by law enforcement, rather than social workers, and would be prosecuted as such.

 To receive the federal money the states would have to submit an annual report to the federal government, known as an AFCARS report, that specifically accounts for each child in state care.

"... The states were to establish “citizen review panels” comprised of a specifically designated representation of the population which would include not only members of collateral professional communities involved in child protection, but “parents, foster parents, and former foster children.” Each state was to have at least three citizen review panels. The panels would essentially act as a standing jury of peers and would review CPS cases. Twenty years after P.L. 96- 272 went into effect the citizen review panels have never been established in most states."

 Another means of creating accountability was to have the federal authority, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, conduct compliance audits, which are known as Section 427 reviews. The method of enforcement that Congress devised to ensure that the states followed the federal law was to provide incentive funds to the states that documented their compliance with the federal regulations. The states would self-certify compliance, but could be subjected to “periodic” 427 reviews by the Dept. of Health & Human Services. Were the states to find themselves in non-compliance they would simply return the incentive funds. It would seem that providing cash to agencies that are allowed to self-document compliance is a somewhat less than intelligent system. It would be interesting to track down exactly how much money the states child “protective” agencies have returned to the government because they found themselves in non-compliance.

 Even when HHS finds overwhelming evidence of lack of compliance during 427 reviews, no sanctions are imposed and they continue to keep the fed $$$ pouring in – in violation of their own regulations. Not so much as a slap on the hand or even token admonishment. Certainly explains how CPS developed their arrogance and contempt for any authority – because there is none. Their confidence that they are free from the feds insisting on compliance with the law is well illustrated by the foster care numbers which increased dramatically after CAPTA began feeding federal dollars into the states child protection agencies, then dropped equally dramatically after the enactment of P.L.96-272, which was supposed to create more specific federal regulation and accountability. However, once the state agencies saw that the federal government was not enforcing compliance, the foster care numbers soared once again.

 The initial concept of “reasonable efforts” was the only conclusion that any rational person could come to: rather than disrupt children’s lives, and traumatize them by seizing them from non- abusive situations and placing them with strangers (who are often no better, and sometimes far worse), assist families in overcoming their obstacles and problems by providing support and services. The idea never worked, though, because it has always been more profitable to too many to remove children rather than keep them at home. Rather than offer support and simple, practical services to families CPS forged contracts with vendors. Now private businesses, under the guise of “service providers”, could mushroom into existence knowing that their sugar daddy, CPS, would provide a never-ending flow of coerced clients. The market potential is unlimited – potentially every mother, father, grandparent, and child in the country. Rather than offering practical, meaningful services that are germane to the families circumstances, CPS clients are ordered to engage in “services” with CPS-contracted vendors; special interest groups who are dependent on CPS for their income and profit by maintaining the levels of children in foster care, and whose interests are protected by a bureaucracy intent on securing it’s own survival and protecting unlimited growth.

 The extent of which CPS is allowed to continue to operate while being so far out of compliance with the existing state and federal laws is mind boggling. It would be a challenge to find any other agency in our countries history that operated in such gross and blatant violation of the law with absolutely no intervention from the administration. Tens of millions of tax dollars are being squandered on a system that is destroying families and causing lifelong emotional ruin to children – and those are the lucky ones who live through it.

 The most egregious area of outright criminal fraud is CPS’s practice of filing their federally required documentation of compliance in secrecy through the courts. The federal foster care reimbursements are channeled through the Title IV-E section of the Social Security Act. Each states child welfare agency enters into a contract with the federal government, which is referred to as their Title IV-E state plan. It is this contract that spells out the responsibilities that CPS must, by law, comply with in order to receive their federal funding. To document compliance with the fed regs CPS must file a form through the courts in each individual case. In Massachusetts these forms are referred to as a “29-C.”

 By seizing children illegally in violation of the Title IV-E requirements, then filing false documents in secrecy through the courts to obtain federal funding, CPS is defrauding the federal government with intent. CPS should be subject to investigation and prosecution by the U.S. Attorneys Office. They should be held liable for the restitution of all illegally obtained funds, and prosecuted for perjury, obstruction of justice, and the fraudulent collection of federal funds under the False Statements and Accountability Act of 1996, P.L. 104-292 110 stat 3459, 42 U.S.C.S. 670-679a; P.L. 96-272; C.F.R. part 1356; and Title IV-E.


In 1988 George Miller, the original architect of P.L. 96-272, and Chairman of the congressionally appointed Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, recognized the fraud being committed in the name of child “protection”, and stated:
“What has been demonstrated here is that you have a system that is simply in contempt. This system has been sued and sued and orders have been issued and they just continue on their merry way. And HHS just continues to look the other way. You have a system that is not only out of control, it’s illegal at this point. What you are really engaged in is state sponsored child abuse.”

Source: http://cbliss.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/state%E2%80%99s-child-protection-agencies-collude-with-judges-to-defraud-federal-government/


*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

State confiscates newborn over vaccinations


You won't believe what social worker did hours after baby's birth

An organization that routinely deals with homeschooling issues across the U.S. and around the globe is taking on a case of parental rights because the circumstances – a social worker calling police over a newborn’s shots – is just too egregious to let pass.
The announcement was made by Michael P. Farris, the chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, today.
“We are taking this case because we are tired of seeing the erosion of parental rights in virtually every area of life. Parental rights in medical cases have an impact on broader parental rights, including educational decisions,” he said. “And the plain fact is this: If we don’t fight for parental rights, it is probable that our rights will be eroded bit by bit until there is nothing that remains.”
He said the organization was not using its normal membership revenue from homeschooling families to fund the new fight, and said supporters were being directed to a special freedom fund mechanism on the HSDLA website.
He said among the issues in the case: social service workers who called police when a new mother wanted tests before authorizing shots for her child, a hospital that ejected the new mom from its property over the issue, a social service “investigation” into the birth, and others.
The HSLDA’s Farris reported on the situation involving the couple named Scott and Jodi Ferris.
Jodi had gone into labor early and the midwife they had hoped would deliver their baby encouraged them to head to a hospital. They did.
“Their baby, whom I will call ‘Annie,’ was born in the ambulance in the parking lot of the Hershey Medical Center – a government hospital in Pennsylvania. Hospital personnel arrived very quickly and took charge of both baby and mom,” he reported.
But when Jodi asked nurses about her baby, “the hospital staff was utterly unresponsive. When they started to give Jodi an injection, she asked what it was and what is was for. They gave her vague answers like, ‘It’s just to help.’”
Farris said eventually a physician told Jodi her baby scored a 9 on a physical exam applied to newborns known as the APGAR test, where a score of 8 or higher is considered healthy.
But then another doctor said the baby was “very sick” and would need to stay in the hospital.
Continuing the back-and-forth, another hospital staffer then said the baby was doing good but that was followed several hours later by a worker who told the couple their baby must stay in the hospital for 48 to 72 hours.
“‘The law requires us to keep the baby for 48 hours,’” they were told, according to the HSLDA, which noted there is no such law in Pennsylvania.
WND could not reach hospital officials for comment tonight.
Ultimately, a hospital “risk management” staff member admitted that the risk that was being managed was not the health of the child, but the risk that the hospital might get sued if something went wrong after the baby was released.
Then, according to the HSLDA, “a government social worker named Angelica Lopez-Heagy came into Jodi’s room announcing that she was there to conduct an investigation. Jodi asked to know the allegations. The social worker claimed that it would be against the law for her to show Jodi the allegations.
“Jodi replied that she would not be comfortable answering the questions if she couldn’t know the allegations. Immediately the social worker proclaimed, ‘Since you’re not going to cooperate, I’ll just go and call the police and we can take custody of the baby.’”
The mixups just wouldn’t quit. When Jodi said she was cooperating, the social worker implied the issue was Jodi’s refusal to consent to a vitamin K shot for the baby.
“Jodi replied that no one had asked her about such a shot. Moreover, she had overheard hospital staffers saying that they had already given Annie such a shot,” the report said.
Then, when Scott left the hospital to tend to their older children, hospital officials demanded permission to give Annie a Hepatitis B shot.
“Jodi said that she would agree only if they tested her or Annie to see if either of them were positive. If so, then she was quite willing to have the shot for Annie. The hospital claimed that they had forgotten about this earlier when it was still possible to test that day, and that they needed to give the shot anyway without any testing,” HSLDA reported.
Jodi asked if the decision could wait until her husband returned.
“Put yourself in Jodi’s shoes at this moment,” Farris wrote. “You gave birth that morning in an ambulance. The hospital has made wild and conflicting claims about your baby’s health all day long. You are exhausted. You are in pain. Your husband has gone to check on your children. And a social worker who has threatened to take your baby into police custody is standing in your hospital room demanding that you make an immediate decision.”
Then, he reported, “the story turns ugly.”
“The social worker left the room and called the police. Without a court order they took custody of Annie, immediately claiming that she was suffering from illness or injury – a patently false claim. The social worker consented to the administration of the Hepatitis B shot even though no blood test had been done,” he reported.
“The police made Jodi Ferris get up out of her hospital bed and escorted her to the entrance – they were expelling her from the hospital because she had not signed the ‘safety plan.’”
She was escorted off the hospital grounds.
But she had been told she could return every three hours to nurse the baby, so the couple was forced to spend the night in a car in the parking lot of a nearby Wal-Mart.
“You read that right. They kicked this mother out of the hospital, and in order to be close enough to feed her child, she had to sleep in the car,” Farris reported.
A hearing the next morning returned the baby to her parents immediately.
“It is not a crime to ask questions about the well-being of your child. It is not a crime to ask for testing to ensure that a procedure is needed before it is done. It is not a crime to be a protective mom,” Farris reported.
“Both the medical personnel and the social worker engaged in outrageous behavior toward this family. And we believe that they violated their rights under the Constitution of the United States. And we are going to court to prove it,” Farris said.
“The social worker’s priority was not the welfare of Annie, but her own convenience and her own perception of her power. She was aiming to teach this homeschooling mother a lesson. And the hospital was clearly not concerned that Annie had a medical issue – they were just trying to avoid being sued for medical malpractice.
“When government workers run over parents in cases like this, the lesson that needs to be taught is to the government,” he said.
It was just a day earlier when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to intervene in another case involving parental rights fought by the HSLDA.
In that case, Arizona deputies threatened parents with the forced removal of their five children unless they agreed to let social workers, who did not have a warrant or probable case, search their home.
The stunning conclusion came in a lawsuit brought on behalf of John and Tiffany Loudermilk, who sued officials after a confrontation at their Maricopa County, Ariz., home in 2005.
A district court judge ruled a reasonable person would believe the Loudermilks’ decision to allow social workers to search their home was coerced, in violation of the 4th Amendment. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the search was proper.
The case may not be finished, as the opinion from the 9th Circuit was unpublished, which means that it is not binding on future cases. Also, when the deputies appealed to the 9th Circuit for immunity, the social workers who also were sued did not, and that part of the case remains on hold at the district court level.
James Mason, chief counsel for the HSLDA, which brought the case on behalf of the family, told WND that the group will consult with the family and soon make a determination on the next step.
But he said the result is disappointing, because no matter the status of the appeal, the situation did develop, and the threats were made to give the social workers what they wanted.
The case developed after a still-anonymous tipster told authorities that there was a danger to the children in the new home. Two months later, social services workers Rhonda Cash and Jenna Cramer arrived unannounced at the home and explained that it was an emergency because social workers decided it was an emergency at that point.


*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

State can snatch kids

War on U.S. homeschoolers escalates State can snatch kids thanks to Supreme Court Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, caught up in the high-profile Obamacare arguments that started today, have refused to intervene in a case in which deputies threatened parents with the forced removal of their children unless they agreed to let social workers, who did not have a warrant or probable case, search their home. The stunning conclusion came in a lawsuit brought on behalf of John and Tiffany Loudermilk, who sued officials after a confrontation at their Maricopa County, Ariz., home in 2005. A district court judge ruled a reasonable person would believe the Loudermilks’ decision to allow social workers to search their home was coerced, in violation of the 4th Amendment. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the search was proper. The case may not be finished, as the opinion from the 9th Circuit was unpublished, which means that it is not binding on future cases. Also, when the deputies appealed to the 9th Circuit for immunity, the social workers who also were sued did not, and that part of the case remains on hold at the district court level. James Mason, chief counsel for the Home School Legal Defense Association, which brought the case on behalf of the family, told WND that the group will consult with the family and soon make a determination on the next step. But he said the result is disappointing, because no matter the status of the appeal, the situation did develop, and the threats were made to give the social workers what they wanted. The HSLDA described the situation: “For 40 terrifying minutes, this homeschooling couple had asserted their Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable search of their home. The two investigative social workers were eventually joined by six uniformed sheriff’s deputies who were called because the social workers considered the Loudermilks to be ‘uncooperative.’” Then social workers played their “ace-in-the-hole” and threatened the parents that their five children would be placed in state custody immediately if they did not allow the search. The case developed after a still-anonymous tipster told authorities that there was a danger to the children in the new home. Two months later, social services arrived unannounced at the home and explained that it was an emergency because social workers decided it was an emergency at that point. “In the two months between receiving the anonymous report and arriving unannounced on the Loudermilks’ front porch, social services clearly never believed that the situation needed emergency intervention,” HSLDA asserted. “No one ever asked a judge for a court order. But when it came time for the social workers to complete their investigation, the family’s Fourth Amendment rights just got in the way.” It was social workers Rhonda Cash and Jenna Cramer who appeared at the home unannounced and threatened to take the family’s five children. “She (Cash) appeared to believe that her simple inability to determine the children’s living conditions was sufficient grounds for her to remove the children from their parents,” the petition to the high court explained. That’s even though the social workers were allowed to talk to the children to see that they were fine. The social workers called on the deputies to reinforce the threats with the force of law. “Faced with unrelenting ultimatum that the officers would physically remove the children from the home unless they were admitted, together with a significant show of force, John felt that he had no option besides allowing the search of his home. He believed that he would be arrested and the children removed if he continued to refuse… Tiffany believed her children would be immediately removed from the home if she did not allow the social workers and officers to search her home,” the appeal stated. The ultimate search took only minutes and uncovered no issues, showing that the “tip” was wrong. “In this case, the lead law enforcement officer concluded that there was no basis for suggesting that exigent circumstances existed which would support a warrantless entry,” the brief explained. Mason suggested that the outcome of the confrontation could provide a ripple effect for families confronted by authorities investigating anonymous tips in a variety of scenarios.


http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/war-on-u-s-homeschoolers-escalates/

 *The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Sunday, March 11, 2012

PROTECTING CHILDREN AND OTHER VULNERABLE POPULATIONS

PROTECTING CHILDREN AND
OTHER VULNERABLE
POPULATIONS

Adoption Incentives:  To ensure
that as many children as possible
grow up in stable and loving
families, ACF provides bonuses to
States that increase the number of
children adopted from their public
foster care systems.  Bonuses are
also awarded for adoption of
difficult to place children, those
nine and older and those with
special needs.  The number of
qualifying public agency
adoptions continues to increase,
from 50,740 in FY 2007 to 54,372
in FY 2009 (the most recent year
for which complete data are
available).
  The Budget includes
$50 million, a 26 percent increase
above FY 2010, to cover
anticipated State bonus payments
due to increased adoptions for
which States can claim incentive
payments.


ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
http://www.hhs.gov/about/FY2012budget/fy2012bib.pdf   (Page 88)

----------------------------------------------------

Fiscal Year 2010 Budget in Brief

Administration for Children and Families: Discretionary Spending

Adoption Incentives: States that successfully increase the number of children adopted from their public foster care systems receive bonus payments from ACF. The Budget requests $40 million for these bonuses, an increase of $3 million over FY 2009, to fully cover anticipated State bonus payment levels. States receive bonus payments for adoptions completed in the previous year. The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 raised bonus payments for adoption of special needs and older children and made other program improvements. After remaining unchanged for several years, data indicates a 5 percent increase (to 54,000) in the number of adoptions between FY 2007 and FY 2008.

 http://dhhs.gov/asfr/ob/docbudget/2010budgetinbriefr.html
--------------------------------------------

And not to kick a dead horse... but how do you think those kids get INTO foster care?
Yes, I can spell Child Trafficking Racket.

Saturday, March 10, 2012

How To Make Money In Tough Times

 Become a foster parent. You can make $25,000 per year on each kid you take in! Let's say you take in three kids, you could get $50,000 to $75,000 per year!

Tap... tap... tap... where do you get kids you ask? One cool way is to listen to your relatives. Sooner or later, one will confide in you and when they do, talk to their local child protective service worker. You can place an ORDER for THEIR kids. That social worker will make false allegations, lie and eventually kidnap your relatives kids. Even if you are only a small part relative! No matter. That social worker makes money too! It's a monetarily win win situation for you and that social worker! You'll be best buddies from then on. You will benefit many service organizations like psychotherapists, doctors, lawyers... heck, even cab drivers! Let's say, the psychco- therapist says those kids are "special needs kids". That's more money for the social worker. Does it affect the kids you ask? Who cares! They are only little money machines! You don't actually have to care for the kids. Just give them the basics and make money. That detente in your couch will love you.

You will no longer need real jobs. You will no longer have to leave home "to work".

What if the kids are not happy? No biggie here either! The social worker will delay tactic until the "Stockholm syndrome" kicks in. Or drug them! (Doctors need money too!) The kids will learn to accept their captors one way or the other.

What if some other relative protests and what could happen in the future? That relative may not EVER let it go. They may tell the world of how you illegally placed an order for kids and how that social worker group kidnapped those kids from their care for you. And some day... those kids will grow up (maybe). They will know the truth. They may hate you and your detented couch. Again, no biggie. You made a crap load of money along the way!

Who cares!... Even though you and those socialist workers would be considered the lowest form of life on earth, you made it through tough times! Those of us that have real jobs honor you!


*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Thursday, March 8, 2012

How to Kidnap Children for Fun and Profit!

 
How to Kidnap Children for Fun and Profit!

Receive government bonuses for each child!
Accept praise from your peers!
Intimidate total strangers!
Become immune from prosecution!

But wait!... There's more!

Take orders from poor childless folks who want other peoples children!
Later... you can kidnap them again for more profit!
You can lie, cheat and make false allegations against anyone you want!
Learn how to ignore U.S. Constitutional rights of peons!

Become a god!

Become an Alaskan Child Protective Social Worker!

Secret training and Handbook available... available in all U.S. States.



And you think I'm kidding right?


*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Constitution 101. Know Your Rights!

Free... Free... Free... Know Your Rights!

About Constitution 101


“Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of the Constitution” is a 10-week online course presented by Hillsdale College.
Featuring an expanded format from the “Introduction to the Constitution” lecture series with Hillsdale College President Dr. Larry Arnn, Constitution 101 follows closely the one-semester course required of all Hillsdale College undergraduate students.
In this course, you can:
  • watch lectures from the same Hillsdale faculty who teach on campus;
  • study the same readings taught in the College course;
  • submit questions for weekly Q&A sessions with the faculty;
  • access a course study guide;
  • test your knowledge through weekly quizzes; and
  • upon completion of the course, receive a certificate from Hillsdale College.
  1. Introduction: The American Mind
    Larry P. ArnnMonday, February 20
  2. The Declaration of Independence
    Thomas G. WestMonday, February 27
  3. The Problem of Majority Tyranny
    David BobbMonday, March 5
  4. Separation of Powers: Preventing Tyranny
    Kevin PortteusMonday, March 12
  5. Separation of Powers: Ensuring Good Government
    Will MorriseyMonday, March 19
  6. Religion, Morality, and Property
    David BobbMonday, March 26
  7. Crisis of Constitutional Government
    Will MorriseyMonday, April 2
  8. Abraham Lincoln and the Constitution
    Kevin PortteusMonday, April 9
  9. The Progressive Rejection of the Founding
    Ronald J. PestrittoMonday, April 16
  10. The Recovery of the Constitution
    Larry P. ArnnMonday, April 23
Log in here: http://www.hillsdaleoffer.com/rush


*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Friday, March 2, 2012

Anderson: 'I Was Stunned by Today's Show'

Anderson: 'I Was Stunned by Today's Show'

Thursday, March 01, 2012 6:10AM
After taping today’s show, will Anderson sign a document again without reading the fine print?
"I was really stunned by today's show... by some of the stories," says Anderson.
After hearing Kristy, Jake and so many other victims of ruthless scams, take a look at what Anderson has to say about what he learned from the show...


Read more: http://www.andersoncooper.com/2012/02/29/anderson-i-was-stunned-by-todays-show/#ixzz1o1adarVy



video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player


http://www.andersoncooper.com/


*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Files in PDF. It's time for the fat lady to sing.

With a new computer and the right program, we are making ALL files, notes and any other information we have collected concerning the kidnapping of our grand children by OCS and others available in PDF format for any and all to read should they feel the need. Unlike OCS and others, we have nothing to hide. These files will be made available in many places. You will be able to read for yourself the lies and corruption concerning this planned kidnapping event. Videos are also planned.
Anyone we have ever talked to has become mute or invisible after contacting OCS. When money's involved, people clam up from fear or the fear of losing it. From vendor profits, OSC paychecks to foster profits. It's all about the money. Kids are traded like commodities thanks to the Clintons, Mondale and CPS.
The files will be up soon.
It's time for the fat lady to sing.



*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207