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

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Common Law Grand Jury

Research:  Common Law Grand Jury

From http://www.evilconservativeonline.com/2009/03/what-power-does-common-law-grand-jury.html
There has been a lot of buzz this weekend after Carl Swensson and the common-law grand jury he convened in Georgia this weekend created a presentment of findings against Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro aka Barry Sutoro. A lot of the commentary that I've read has been dismissive of the efforts of Mr. Swensson, and so I thought I'd pass along a few viewpoints on this matter. Frankly, whether the presentment against Obama gains traction or not really isn't the point... but rather that Americans are becoming so fed up that they are becoming creative in the effort to use our constitution for its intended purpose - limiting the power of our benevolent overlords in government who pretend to be above the law. May a thousand more Cark Swenssons rise up across America in the coming weeks to shed light on the darkness that has become our government.

Opinion 1:
In discussing that power and unique independence granted to the grand jury, the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court, laid down the law of the land:

"'[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history," Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It "`is a constitutional fixture in its own right.'" United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). ' "

Scalia also stated, that "the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside..." Id.

And finally, to seal the deal, Scalia hammered the point home:

"In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length. Judges' direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48] "

This miraculous quote says it all, "...the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people." The Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives rise to a FOURTH BRANCH of Government, THE GRAND JURY. We the people have been charged with oversight of the government in our roles as grand jurors.

Opinion 2:
I want to draw your attention to a law review article, CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821, IF IT'S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT'S NOT A REAL GRAND JURY by Roger Roots, J.D.

"In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past."

An article appearing in American Juror, the newsletter of the American Jury Institute and the Fully Informed Jury Association, citing the famed American jurist, Joseph Story, explained :

"An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of the government. An indictment is framed by the officers of the government, and laid before the grand jury. Presentments, on the other hand, are the result of a jury’s independent action:

'A presentment, properly speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of its own mere motion, of an offence upon its own observation and knowledge, or upon evidence before it, and without any bill of indictment laid before it at the suit of the government. Upon a presentment, the proper officer of the court must frame an indictment, before the party accused can be put to answer it.' "

Back to the Creighton Law Review:

"A 'runaway' grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today's "runaway" grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact "runaways," according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself."

So, it's clear that the Constitution intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight. But something strange happened on the way to the present. That power was eroded by a lie enacted by the legislative branch. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution still contains the same words, but if you sit on a grand jury and return a "presentment" today, the prosecutor must sign it or it probably won't be allowed to stand by the judge and the criminal charges you have brought to the court's attention will be swept away. And the reason for this can be found in a legislative lie of epic proportions.

Mr. Roots weighs in again:

"In 1946, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted, codifying what had previously been a vastly divergent set of common law procedural rules and regional customs.[86] In general, an effort was made to conform the rules to the contemporary state of federal criminal practice.[87] In the area of federal grand jury practice, however, a remarkable exception was allowed. The drafters of Rules 6 and 7, which loosely govern federal grand juries, denied future generations of what had been the well-recognized powers of common law grand juries: powers of unrestrained investigation and of independent declaration of findings. The committee that drafted the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provided no outlet for any document other than a prosecutor-signed indictment. In so doing, the drafters at least tacitly, if not affirmatively, opted to ignore explicit constitutional language."[88]"

Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP):

"An offense which may be punished by death shall be prosecuted by indictment. An offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or at hard labor shall be prosecuted by indictment..."

No mention of "presentments" can be found in Rule 7. But they are mentioned in Note 4 of the Advisory Committee Notes on the Rules:

"4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts."

The American Juror published the following commentary with regards to Note 4:

"[W]hile the writers of the federal rules made provisions for indictments, they made none for presentments. This was no oversight. According to Professor Lester B. Orfield, a member of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, the drafters of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 6 decided the term presentment should not be used, even though it appears in the Constitution. Orfield states [22 F.R.D. 343, 346]:

'There was an annotation by the Reporter on the term presentment as used in the Fifth Amendment. It was his conclusion that the term should not be used in the new rules of criminal procedure. Retention might encourage the use of the run-away grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or observation and not only from charges made by the United States attorney. It has become the practice for the United States Attorney to attend grand jury hearings, hence the use of presentments have been abandoned.' "

That's a fascinating statement: "Retention might encourage...the grand jury [to] act from their own knowledge or observation." God forbid, right America? The nerve of these people. They have the nerve to put on the record that they intended to usurp our Constitutional power, power that was intended by the founding fathers, in their incredible wisdom, to provide us with oversight over tyrannical government.

And so they needed a spin term to cast aspersions on that power. The term they chose was, "runaway grand jury", which is nothing more than a Constitutionally mandated grand jury, aware of their power, and legally exercising that power to hold the federal beast in check, as in "checks and balances".

The lie couldn't be inserted into the Constitution, so they put it in a statute and then repeated it. And scholars went on to repeat it, and today, as it stands, the grand jury has effectively been lied into the role of submissive puppet of the US Attorney.

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

Friday, October 26, 2012


Child Protective Services Manual


AUTHORITY:  AS 25.23.180 Relinquishment and Termination of Parent and Child Relationships,
AS 25.23.130(c) Effect of Adoption Decree
, AS 47.10.089 Voluntary Relinquishment of Parental
Rights and Responsibilities, 25 U.S.C. 1913 (a) & (c), 1915 (P. L. 95-608, Sec. 103(a)(c), Sec. l05
(a)(c)(d)(e); Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978).AS 47.10.

PURPOSE:  To  provide guidelines for the voluntary relinquishment by a parent.

h. When parents have relinquished their parental rights with the understanding that their child will be adopted by a specific person, the worker will notify them if the proposed placement fails. The requirement to notify the parents applies from the time of the relinquishment until the adoption is finalized, even after termination of parental rights. After receiving notice that the proposed placement has failed, a parent may notify OCS, in writing, of a desire to withdraw the relinquishment. If the parent does not submit such notice to OCS within 30 days of being notified of the failed placement, OCS is not required to have any further contact with the parent. The parent’s request to withdraw the relinquishment is not automatically granted. OCS decides whether to consent to the withdrawal or not, based on the circumstances of the case. Consents for withdrawal must be approved and signed by the Children’s Services Manager.


AUTHORITY:  AS 25.23.060 Execution of Consent; consent as power of attorney, AS 25.23.070
Withdrawal of Consent, AS 47.10.086(b) Reasonable Efforts, 25 U.S.C. 1913 (P. L. 95-608 Indian
Child Welfare Act of 1978).

PURPOSE:  To provide guidelines on the Consent to Adoption by Parent process as an alternative to a relinquishment.

DEFINITION: Consent to adoption by parent(s) is a voluntary agreement signed by the child’s parent in which the parent agrees that adoption is best for the child. The child’s birth parent does not relinquish their rights to the child; instead the parent is able to formally consent to the adoption of their child. The consent to the adoption by the parent is often a thoughtful decision by the parent who feels that the child will benefit from adoption.

b. For ICWA cases, the parents may change their mind and withdraw the consent to adoption anytime before the finalization of the adoption. This must be done through a written notice to the department, or to the court.
 d. In the consent to adopt, the parent will retain residual rights to the child up to the finalization of the adoption. Once the decree for adoption is signed by the court, the birth parent’s rights are terminated at the same time.
e. The decision to consider consent to adoption by parent rather than a relinquishment or termination of parental rights must be based on what is in the best interest of the child. Additionally, the decision to pursue consent to adoption by parent must be discussed by the Permanency Planning Conference team.
b. Consent to adoption by a parent can be considered in cases in which there is agreement on the child’s adoptive placement. Any contacts after the adoption between the child and birth parents are at the discretion of the adoptive parents, unless otherwise legally agreed upon between parties.
 d. The OCS will work with the parent(s) and the parent’s attorney to have the parent sign the consent to adoption by parent. The parent must be fully informed that in signing the consent to adopt by parent, the parent is consenting to the permanent adoption of the child with an identified adoptive family. Additionally, the worker will inform the parent that the residual rights to consent to marriage, military enlistment, non-emergency medical care, visitation, and adoption, as well as the residual responsibility of child support continue until the point that the adoption is finalized. The parent must also be fully informed that once the adoption is finalized, the parent’s rights to the child are terminated based on the decree of adoption or birth certificate.
*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Monday, October 22, 2012

The Schoolyard-Bully

Here is a cute little quote I found. I thought I would post it. It is an interesting little tid-bit that can be read into any way you choose.
 In an era of high education and specialty degrees—from psychology to political science—perhaps it was inevitable for simple common sense to fall by the wayside. To understand all this, one need only turn to the classic “schoolyard bully” paradigm, that any child can understand.

Not especially large or strong, the schoolyard bully—generally a prickly, nasty fellow—picks on two groups: 1) those who are obviously weaker than him and 2) those who, while larger or stronger than him, willingly give in to him—willingly appease. Bullying the first group, the weak, is an easy matter for the bully. As for the second group, whose capacities and responses are unclear, these he must first determine through a few bully trial-runs—to see whether they will fight back, or whether they will give in. He begins small—a shove and harsh word here and there—and takes it from there, always seeing how far he can go.

The bully will receive one of two responses from the second group, those not smaller or weaker than him: either appeasement and giving in, or a punch to the nose. If he receives the former, he continually ups the bullying to see how much more he can get away with: harsh words and shoves become demands for lunch money and stolen jackets. His work becomes complete with the absolute subordination of his victim.

 As for the one who does not put up with his bullying—who gives him a swift punch to the nose—not only does the bully leave him be, he even begins to respect if not befriend him.
 (Beware of the wolf in sheep's clothing!)

 For centuries, people from all walks of life knew this—from experience if not common sense. Children knew it.

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

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Jury Finds Nevada County Superior Court Guilty of Retaliation

 Verdict in whistleblower’s historic case exposes the flaws of an unregulated legal system

SACRAMENTO, CA – Former family court mediator Emily Gallup prevailed today in an
historic wrongful termination lawsuit against the Nevada County Superior Court (NCSC). After
three days of deliberation, a Sacramento jury found NCSC guilty of retaliating against Ms.
Gallup, awarding her $313,000 for the financial and emotional damages she incurred. Gallup was represented by M.Catherine Jones and George Allen in the four week trial.
“This verdict should serve as a wakeup call to family courts across America,” said Gallup.
“Children cannot be treated like widgets and shoved through the family court machine. Laws
protecting the best interests of children must be followed.” 
Gallup alleged during the trial that her department failed to comply with the California Rules of
Court. She reported that family court mediators were making recommendations about child
custody without reviewing court files, gathering collateral information, or checking parents’
criminal backgrounds. She explained to jurors that domestic violence (DV) victims were
routinely not offered separate mediation sessions as required by law. Trial witnesses testified that parents were subjected to a variety of coercive tactics by Judge Julie McManus and court
mediators, including threats that their children might commit suicide if they failed to reach a
mediated agreement.
  “Children’s health and safety were being compromised,” Gallup states. “I was being told to do
what I was told, and I just couldn’t do that in good conscience. I wasn’t willing to blindly follow
misguided orders,” Gallup explains, “even if they came from a judge.”
It has been a long road for Gallup toward today’s decision. She originally discussed her
compliance concerns with her supervisor, the family court judge, the human resources director,
and the Court Executive Officer. She called the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) for
help in April of 2010 but learned that the AOC was not authorized to enforce individual court’s
compliance with the law. Gallup filed a grievance against her department at that time, and an
arbitration hearing occurred in September of 2010. NCSC terminated Gallup in December 2010, prior to the issuance of the arbitrator’s award. The arbitrator found in Gallup’s favor, ruling that she had raised concerns in good faith, and that her efforts had been met with retaliation. Inaddition to awarding Gallup back pay and attorney’s fees, the arbitrator ordered an audit of theNevada County Family Court Services Department. NCSC subsequently had the arbitration award vacated on the grounds that the arbitrator overstepped his authority by ordering an audit.
“There is a shocking lack of oversight over the judicial system,” Gallup said.
She has joined forces with the Center for Judicial Excellence and the California Protective
Parents Association to lobby for reforms that will bring accountability to the family court
system. Gallup expects that problems in the family court system will persist until judges and
other court officials are held accountable for following the law.

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

CPS Pedophilia and Corruption Exposed // Alex Jones speaks with Jerome Corsi

 Alex Jones speaks on Child Protection Service Exposed: jun 09 2009 broadcast and Jerome Corsi speaking with Alex on child prostitution and CPS corruption. Texas CPS and Florida CPS.


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

Saturday, October 6, 2012

Video: Next generation pleads, save our country!

A group of California teenagers have created a video called “Voices Without a Vote,” pleading with those who can vote in November to elect leaders who defend the U.S. Constitution and govern according to its principles.

For the whole story... please visit WND EXCLUSIVE

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

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Alaska Citizen Review Panel (of OCS) 2012 Annual Report

 The newest citizen review panel for 2012 is out. It can be viewed, printed or downloaded from the right hand column of this page. It is listed in "My Library of Publications" to the right and down.

The Alaska Citizen Review Panel (CRP) is committed to reviewing and evaluating the
practices and procedures of the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) and in making
recommendations relative to its findings to ensure the safety and the well‐being of the
children of Alaska.
The CRP will achieve this commitment by examining the policies and procedures of the
Office of Children’s Services, and collecting feedback from collaborating agencies;
examining, where appropriate, specific cases; evaluating the extent to which the agency
is carrying out its child protection responsibilities; and preparing and making available to
the public an annual report.
The Citizens' Review Panel (CRP) is federally mandated through the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA); Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003.
The CRP is also mandated through Alaska Statute Sec. 47.14.205. 
“By allowing the Panels to have complete access to child protection cases, by requiring
Panels to publicize their findings, and by requiring states to respond to criticisms and
recommendations of the Panels, the Committee intends to subject states to public
criticism and political repercussion if they fail to protect children.” (United States Congress, House Report 104‐081, 1995, p.1)

Here are the two recommendations made suggesting what the Office Of Children's Service should do;

Recommendation 1: That OCS take aggressive action to reduce staff turn‐over.

The Panel has suggested that funding be allocated so that OCS may offer decent housing
as a recruiting and retention tool in rural communities where housing is a challenge. 
[Maybe it's me, but I read Free Housing. Just another perk for the industry.]

 Recommendation 2:  That OCS establish deadlines that require non‐emergency
petitions to be filed allowing for supervision of the family by the continuum of legal
parties without necessitating the removal of the child.

Currently, when OCS has safety concerns about a child which are too great to screen out
but require some intervention on the part of the agency, the family is referred to the “in
home” designation. A social worker is required to work with the parents on the safety
issues, make referrals for services, and visit the home to check on the child. The parents’
participation with OCS is voluntary.
 OCS does not have legal or physical custody and no
other legal parties are involved.
 We are recommending that in these instances, OCS file non‐emergency petitions which
give OCS legal custody
 but allow the child to remain at home with the parents who
retain physical custody. This allows for court oversight, the parents are able to have an
attorney appointed to represent them, the Tribe (in an ICWA case) is a party, and a
guardian ad litem is appointed for the children. The result is more support and
involvement of the parents while protecting the legal rights of the parents, the children,
and if applicable, the Tribe.

 [The way I read it: far too much money is slipping through ocs's hands. Getting legal custody is the only way ocs is not working for nothing. No matter what they say... once the courts are involved, they start making money. Once in the system, more and more kids will end up in foster care where bonuses kick in.]

Who is on the Citizen Review Panel you ask?

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
Dana W. Hallett, Haines
Pat Hefley, Juneau
Kristin Hull, Wasilla
Steve McComb, Palmer
Stella Schuchardt, Fairbanks
Diwakar Vadapalli, Anchorage

 Every one of them make their living from the "children" related business.

There are no gas station attendants, store clerks, homemakers, dog mushers or any other non-child related "citizens" on this panel. I hate to call this a "good ol' boys club", but I guess I would have to.

The complete CRP Report can be read, printed or downloaded from the box on the right of this page or from the web at http://www.hss.state.ak.us/ocs/Publications/pdf/2012_CRP.pdf . Read it for your self. 

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