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

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Bikers Against Child Abuse (BACA)

BACA Mission Statement
Bikers Against Child Abuse (BACA) exists with the intent to create a safer environment for abused children. We exist as a body of Bikers to empower children to not feel afraid of the world in which they live. We stand ready to lend support to our wounded friends by involving them with an established, united organization. We work in conjunction with local and state officials who are already in place to protect children. We desire to send a clear message to all involved with the abused child that this child is part of our organization, and that we are prepared to lend our physical and emotional support to them by affiliation, and our physical presence. We stand at the ready to shield these children from further abuse. We do not condone the use of violence or physical force in any manner, however, if circumstances arise such that we are the only obstacle preventing a child from further abuse, we stand ready to be that obstacle.

[The states with no link do not yet have a chapter]

 VISIT them on the Web: http://bacaworld.org/mission/

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

Sunday, November 24, 2013

Oklahoma Adoption Attorney Approves Baby Deseray Removal for Friend


Oklahoma Adoption Attorney Approves Baby Deseray Removal for Friend

Next week, South Carolina Judge Marsh Robertson has a hearing scheduled for the finalization of the adoption of Oklahoma-born infant, Merry Rejoice Bixler, better known as “Baby Deseray,” in Greenville County family court. The hearing, on Monday, October 28, comes a little over a month after Oklahoma County Judge Allen Welch granted custody of the girl to the Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma and ordered her return to that state.
RELATED: Second Indian Infant Whisked to South Carolina for Quickie Adoption
Oklahoma Judge Gives Custody of Deseray to Absentee Shawnee Tribe
Four months after her removal, Mike Nomura, the Oklahoma administrator for the Interstate Custody for the Placement of Children (ICPC) applications, approved the paperwork for the child's adoptive parents, Bobby and Diane Bixler, of Irmo, South Carolina. The Bixlers are represented by Raymond Godwin, attorney for Nightlight Christian Adoptions of Greenville, South Carolina, and by Nomura's friend and colleague, Tulsa-based attorney Paul Swain in Oklahoma. (All of them declined to comment on this story.) 
Oklahoma is one of only three states that outsource their ICPC applications to private contractors; in the other 47, all interstate adoptions are handled by the states' departments of human services. Sources in the adoption industry say that state-controlled ICPC approvals reduce cronyism and corruption within the adoption industry and “de-incentive-ize” the financial benefit for private practitioners.
Though Nomura has been in the adoption industry for over 30 years, he graduated from law school in 2012 and has been a licensed attorney for only a year. Additionally, because he is also now a practicing adoption attorney, he can approve his own ICPC applications.
“There are several very serious conflicts of interests in this situation,” said an Oklahoma attorney who declined to be identified because of ongoing professional dealings with Nomura. “But there is no question that he has now become a one-stop shop for all of his own adoption cases, as well as his business dealings with his friends. Also, he is now 'incentive-ized,' if you will, to proceed with these interstate adoptions because he can handle the whole thing on his own—and no one is watching the henhouse.”
In the Baby Deseray case, Indian Country Today Media Network has learned that Nomura is close friends with Swain, who is on the board of directors for Nomura's Tulsa-based private adoption agency, Heritage Family Services. Nomura has been the state’s Department of Human Services compact administrator for ICPC applications since 2008.
When contacted by ICTMN regarding the apparent conflict of interest in approving that ex post facto ICPC application for his friend and colleague, Nomura declined to respond. When asked about his decision to grant the application in spite of the fact that he knew both the birth father and the Absentee Shawnees were objecting to the baby's removal, and that there was a court order calling for her return to Oklahoma, Nomura pointed to case law, Cherokee Nation v. Nomura, which he claimed gives him the authority to grant retroactive applications if it is in the child's “best interest.”
Citing Nomura’s relative lack of courtroom and legal experience, however, adoption experts across the country have scoffed at what they characterize as his “rather fluid” analysis of a court case in which he was the defendant. “[Cherokee v. Nomura] does not apply in this case,” said an Oklahoma City-based ICWA expert who declined to be identified because the case involves a juvenile.
“There's no way he was able to make an informed best interest determination when the kid has been gone for five months and the judge, the birth father and the tribe were very clearly demanding her return before he granted approval. And he's scrambling behind them with a broom trying to make it appear tidy and legal. It's not.”
When asked who he reports to, Nomura forwarded to ICTMN the contact information for Linda Foster, a Tulsa-based Adoption Field Manager for Region 4 of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services, saying she was his supervisor. Foster declined to comment for this story, as did her immediate supervisor, Ed Lake, Director for the Oklahoma Department of Human Services.
Bonnie Clift, assistant general counsel for the Oklahoma Department of Human Services and section chief for child welfare, said she had "no idea" who was supervising Nomura. Additionally, she said she was unaware of the case of Baby Deseray and its potential impact on the Absentee Shawnee.
When ICTMN first reported Deseray's removal by the Bixlers in August, Nomura signaled his displeasure with both Raymond Godwin, the Bixler's South Carolina adoption attorney, and Tulsa attorney Yeksavich because he said that no paperwork had been filed with his office. At the time, Nomura told ICTMN he was “hypothetically, off the record” aware of the situation with Baby Deseray and her removal from the state, but declined to comment further.
According to ICWA experts, the secretive nature of the adoption industry allows many standards and practices to go unregulated and unmonitored, often in violation of state and federal child trafficking and adoption laws. Adoption reformers say that it is the lack of transparency promulgated by “juvenile confidentiality” and laws specifically designed to inhibit and terminate parental rights that have led to numerous custodial train wrecks.
RELATED: Trafficking Native Children: The Seamy Underbelly of U.S. Adoption Industry
For example, in the recent Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, commonly referred to as the Baby Veronica case, it was South Carolina's statute requiring prenatal financial support that was used as a cudgel to terminate Dusten Brown's parental rights. Arguing for the plaintiffs, Matt and Melanie Capobianco, adoption attorney Raymond Godwin cited a South Carolina statute that Brown's rights should be terminated because he had not met the strict payment requirements set forth in South Carolina Code (§ 63-9-310).
From the outset, attorneys and spokespeople for the Capobiancos maintained that Dusten Brown did nothing to support Veronica's biological mother, Christy Maldonado, a charge he and his family have always fiercely denied.
RELATED: Some Disturbing Facts About Baby Veronica's Birth Mother
There are documented cases in South Carolina in which the birth mother was, in fact, instructed to reject help from the birth father in order to ensure compliance with that statute. In Reeves vs. Jane Roe and John Roe (2009), the plaintiff, Craig Reeves, and the unnamed birth mother both testified in court that she had been instructed by Godwin neither to have any contact, nor to accept any money from Reeves.
Quoting Reeve’s testimony from the trial transcript: “She really wouldn’t take anything from me. She advised me that Mr. Godwin at the adoption agency told her that she should not take anything from me or should even be speaking to me.”
During testimony in family court, the birth mother corroborated Reeves' testimony.
Q. Isn’t it true that – or is it true that there were time that you were offered money by [the Petitioner] after Ray Godwin [adoption agency attorney] talked to you about not taking money that you turned down money from [Craig Reeves]?
A. Yes, I did turn down money from [Reeves]. I’m not sure when it was. It was one time that he offered me copy00.
Q. Okay.
A. And I didn’t accept if from him because [Nightlight and Godwin] told me not to.
Initially, the lower courts in South Carolina vacated that adoption and granted Reeves custody of his child, which he maintained for 14 months. The State Supreme Court reversed and ordered the child back to its adoptive parents based solely on the financial requirements for unmarried birth fathers under South Carolina state statutes. The United States Supreme Court declined to hear that case and the lower court ruling was allowed to stand.
But during that same time period, the issue again arose in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. Citing state law requiring prenatal financial support, Godwin argued that Dusten Brown failed to provide any support to Veronica's birth mother, Christy Maldonado. Brown and his mother, however, testified in family court that they attempted numerous times to help Maldonado, but that she "willfully" cut off contact and especially refused to the financial support that both he and his family offered to her during her pregnancy.
Like Reeves, it was Brown’s "failure to provide any material or financial support" to Maldonado that formed the basis for the termination of his parental rights under South Carolina law. After he fought all the way to the United States Supreme Court to enforce his parental rights under the Indian Child Welfare Act, the justices reinforced the state's draconian statute, which legal observers say gives no weight whatsoever to visitation and "non-financial support." Siding with the Capobiancos, the justices remanded the case back to South Carolina for "further review." But the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed its earlier position and ruled in favor of the adoptive parents—again using the prenatal financial requirement to sever Brown's parental rights. Veronica was returned to the Capobiancos in September after living two years with her biological father.
RELATED: Cherokee Nation Mourns as Veronica Is Returned to Adoptive Family
Now, Simmons, like Reeves and Brown, is also in danger of having his parental rights terminated because of his apparent lack of prenatal support. Simmons has said that the birth mother, Crystal Tarbox, refused any contact or financial support from him during his pregnancy, which he also flatly denies. Tarbox's family said she told them that she was also instructed by Godwin to sever all contact and refuse money from Simmons.
“The only thing the Baby Veronica case did was give these adoption attorneys and their minions the greenlight to push as many adoptions of Indian kids as they can get their hands on,” said Don Mason, attorney for Jeremy Simmons, Deseray's birth father. “They are just consumed with greed and making money off these adoptions, and they don't care how they do it.”
Charles Tripp, a Cherokee Nation tribal member and managing partner of Oklahoma-based Legal Advocate for Indian Country law firm, is representing the Absentee Shawnee in Oklahoma in their quest to have Deseray returned to Oklahoma.
“[Adoption agencies] have turned toward Indian country because many of their former feeder markets have cut off American adoptions,” said Tripp recently. “When Russia and these other eastern European countries cut you off from their kids, something's wrong. Because they don't exactly have a great history with their own orphanages and so forth. But that just tells you how jaded these other countries have become toward the American adoption industry.”
In the meantime, another child sits in limbo in South Carolina awaiting her fate on Monday. Her adoptive parents, Bobby Bixler, 64, and Diane Bixler, 60, have been accused of being unfit and emotionally and physically abusive by two of their adult children, who adamantly oppose this adoption.
RELATED: Adult Son of Couple Adopting Deseray Says They Were Abusive Parents

Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/10/25/oklahoma-adoption-attorney-approves-baby-deseray-removal-friend-151918

Serving The Nations | Celebrating The People

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

Sunday, November 17, 2013

Child found handcuffed to porch with dead chicken around his neck

Printed from the Charlotte Observer - www.CharlotteObserver.com
By Hilary Trenda
Published in: Crime & Justice

A Union County [North Carolina] social worker was one of two adults charged with intentional child abuse Friday after deputies found a child handcuffed to a porch with a dead chicken around his neck.
Dorian Lee Harper and Wanda Sue Larson, both 57, have been charged with numerous offenses after a deputy discovered the child at 4116 Austin Road, south of Monroe, authorities said.
Larson is employed as a supervisor with Union County Department of Social Services. She and Harper had adopted four children and were serving as foster parents for a fifth child, officials said.
Union County Sheriff Eddie Cathey called the incident “shocking.”
“I can assure you that we have only just begun our investigation into what has happened, and we will pursue it to its fullest extent,” Cathey said.
A deputy was responding to an animal services complaint at a neighboring home Friday when he walked up to Harper’s and Larson’s residence and saw a “10-12-year-old child secured to the front porch at the ankle, by what appeared to be a pair of handcuffs,” officials said.
“The child also had a dead chicken hanging around his neck and appeared to be shivering,” the Sheriff’s Office said.
Moments later a man appeared on the porch, and asked the deputy why he was there. The deputy asked for the man’s identification and why the child was handcuffed to the porch, officials said.
“The man produced a driver’s license, but then a child at the residence opened a door to the house releasing several large dogs that then accosted the officer,” the Sheriff’s Office said.
The deputy got in his vehicle and by the time the dogs were secured, “the man had removed the child from the porch and left the dead chicken on a barrel on the porch,” authorities said.
When backup arrived, deputies entered and searched the home and found five children, ages 8, 9, 11, 13 and 14, the Sheriff’s Office said. The children were removed from the home. Officers then began a criminal investigation, and the man was taken into custody at the scene.
Harper and Larson have both been charged with intentional child abuse inflicting serious injury, false imprisonment and cruelty to animals, authorities said.
Larson was not present when the children were discovered but is accused of being complicit in the ongoing mistreatment of the children, the Sheriff’s Office said. She was also charged with willful failure to discharge her duty as a public official.
The child handcuffed to the porch is the 11-year-old Harper and Larson had been fostering, authorities said. The children are now in custody of an undisclosed social services agency outside Union County.
Harper is being held under a $500,000 bond. Larson’s bond was set at $525,000. Both are being held at the Union County jail and are scheduled to appear in court on Monday.
Trenda: 704-358-5089; Twitter: @htrenda

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

Saturday, November 16, 2013


This is a re-post from the blog of our friend Michael Connely. It is posted here as it affects us, our children, our grand children and every generation after them.  OBAMAcare will drag us all into the socialist nest of destruction that was once America. Always remember that when the government robs from Peter to pay Paul... it can always count on Paul.

Michael Connelly,
"Constitutional Lawyer

Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation. (www.usjf.net)
Personal website and blog: Michael Connelly blog
CLA site: Constitutional Law Alliance
Author of "The Mortarmen" a book about my father's unit in WWII; "Riders in the Sky: The Ghosts and Legends Of Philmont Scout Ranch",my novel "Amayehli: A Story of America", and the newly released "America's Liveliest Ghosts "
I also have written a booklet on the U.S. Constitution that highlights each section and amendment the way it was originally written. Then I add my comments about what they all truly mean. This a pocket size booklet that every patriotic American should own and distribute to friends and relatives. Find out more and how to order it at:  Constitutional Law Alliance
Check out my radio talk show every week called "Our Constitution" at: http://www.americaswebradio.com/showpages/OurConstitution.php "


Posted November 14, 2013
In August 2009 I read and analyzed the 1100 pages of HR 3200 that was the original version of the Affordable Care Act. I wrote an article about the proposed legislation that became the first one posted on this blog. That article has recently resurfaced several times and gone viral as an email.

Of course, it was no aboutt the version of the law that finally passed, that version originated in the U.S. Senate and was H.R. 3590, originally a House bill on a totally unrelated matter. This was one of the first ruses by the Democrats designed to bypass the Constitutional requirement that all revenue bills begin in the House.

In my original article titled “The Truth About the Health Care Bills” I stated that “The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.” I was attacked by the left immediately for making inaccurate claims about what the bill said, yet everything I predicted has either happened or is in the process of being implemented.

I also concluded in that original article that “this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.”        

In addition, I stated that “This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.”

H.R. 3590 is over 2700 pages and in many respects is worse than the original version. It establishes 138 new federal commissions and agencies; all under the control of Obama. The law is being used to violate the 1st Amendment rights of religious institutions and religious owners of businesses. It violates the 4th Amendment by giving the IRS access to our personal information, and we all know how careful it is with such information.

As for Obama’s promises, people are losing their insurance that they were told they could keep and they will also lose their doctors. But, of course, our President has fixed that. His majesty has ordered insurance companies to renew the policies, but just until after the 2014 elections. That is the way this President fixes things for the American people.

Now, how is he going to fix the lie that insurance premiums would go down when they are going up, and the lie that health care costs would go down when they are rising? Then there is the lie that thousands of new jobs would be created in the health care industry when in fact almost 50,000 health care workers have been laid off so far this year. Of course, new jobs as navigators are being created for Obama loyalists in Acorn, Planned Parenthood, and the Urban League. Navigators for a system that doesn’t work.

Thus, I reiterate what I said in 2009. This law was never about providing affordable health care to Americans; it was and still is about giving the Federal government power to control the lives of Americans. The ACA was designed to fail so the ultimate goal can be achieved, total government control over healthcare, i.e. socialized medicine.

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

Monday, November 11, 2013

Couple owes $53,000 after welfare fraud, judge decrees/Ex-caseworker, husband get jail terms for welfare scam

Couple owes $53,000 after welfare fraud, judge decrees

District Judge Brian Flynn has ruled a former Mesa County Department of Human Services caseworker and her husband must repay $53,512 in restitution stemming from one of the largest welfare fraud prosecutions in Mesa County’s history.
Aurora residents Venica Padilla, 42, and her husband, Tony Padilla Jr., 46, will owe the combined restitution to the Mesa County Department of Human Services, Flynn said in an order issued Friday.
The Padillas had disputed the District Attorney Office’s request for full restitution in the case.
The Padillas were charged in September 2011 of defrauding an adoption subsidy program of more than $53,000 by claiming they were financially supporting two adopted daughters between September 2003 and November 2009, according to arrest warrant affidavits.
An investigation showed the Padillas took assistance despite the fact the two girls in question weren’t living in their home, the affidavits said. They didn’t financially support the girls’ caretakers, either, prosecutors alleged.
In his written order, Flynn said examination of the case by Department of Human Services fraud investigator Susan Skyberg was “well thought-out and thorough.”
“Her conclusions with regard to the amount of restitution being sought on behalf of the Mesa County Department of Human Services are supported by the results of her investigation,” the judge said.
The couple, both free on bond, are scheduled to be sentenced Wednesday in Flynn’s courtroom.
Both pleaded guilty in January to single counts of felony theft under plea agreements with the District Attorney’s Office. Venica Padilla’s plea agreement each call for probation and a four-year deferred judgment. The deferred judgment means she could potentially erase the conviction if she stays out of trouble over the next four years..
Tony Padilla’s plea agreement calls for probation.
The Mesa County Department of Human Services said the Padilla case, when filed in September 2011, was believed to be the largest public-assistance fraud investigated by the agency and referred for prosecution.
Venica Padilla, a senior case manager with the Department of Human Services’ child welfare division, was employed by Mesa County for 13 years before leaving in October 2010, approximately two months after she was first questioned in the fraud investigation. She was a case manager between March 1994 and April 2005, before rejoining the organization in May 2007.
Padilla also worked one year for the child welfare division of the Colorado Department of Human Services.
Gordon Gallagher, Tony Padilla’s attorney, declined comment Monday when contacted about Flynn’s restitution order.
Attorney Andrew Peters, who represents Venica Padilla, couldn’t immediately be reached.

GRAND JUNCTION, Colorado — A former Mesa County Department of Human Services caseworker and her husband have been sentenced to jail terms for welfare fraud.
Venica Padilla was sentenced to 30 days in the Mesa County jail, while her husband, Tony Padilla Jr., was given a 90-day sentence on Wednesday.
According to the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, the Padillas were charged in 2011 with defrauding an adoption subsidy program of more than $53,000 by claiming they were financially supporting two adopted daughters between September 2003 and November 2009. Investigators determined the girls were not living in their home.
Tony Padilla received a longer jail sentence because he had been convicted of four prior felonies.

 * I trust the judge knew what he was doing... but 30 days in county jail and a 90 day sentence for this felony? And this guy already had four prior felonies. Sounds like a repeat felon to me. 90 days?

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

Sunday, November 10, 2013

Mom gets children; DCF gets skewered

Miami Herald
Posted on Fri, Nov. 08, 2013
By Carol Marbin Miller

 " ... A young Miami mom was stripped of the right to raise her four children. The father of the youngest child was allowed to keep the girl.
Just another day in child-welfare court.
But then a child welfare judge in Miami discovered information that troubled him: A social worker who gave damaging testimony against the woman — while lavishing praise on the father — had had sex with the father, at least according to the man himself. Another case worker whose testimony also was damaging to the mother had told colleagues she wanted to adopt her children after the mother lost all rights to them.
Calling the actions of the two child welfare workers — as well as their bosses and lawyers — “reprehensible” and “manifestly unconscionable,” the judge returned the four children to their mother this week. In a 40-page order tinged with anger, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Michael A. Hanzman said the reversal was necessary in order to undo a miscarriage of justice.
Hanzman, who presides over child welfare cases in Miami’s Allapattah juvenile courthouse, wrote that the woman could not have received a fair trial because state child welfare “agents withheld information that demonstrated bias on the part of two material witnesses.”
The Department of Children & Families “and its cadre of private sector agents are a collective prosecutorial arm of the state, charged with a public trust,” Hanzman wrote in the order, signed Tuesday. “The constitutional rights of the families brought into our dependency courts depend upon the faithful and impartial exercise of that trust. When it is betrayed — as it was in this case — due process is denied.”
The mother, Hanzman added, “was entitled to a fair trial. She instead received the ‘parental death penalty’ in a proceeding infected by bias and conflict…The parties prosecuting her knew the process was contaminated, but took no corrective action. The fact that the lives of this family would be permanently altered — and the mother’s constitutional rights severed — was of no moment. The state simply trampled on those constitutional rights in its zeal to win at all costs.”
Child welfare officials in Miami-Dade had some harsh words in return for the judge. They said he had just recently ignored warnings from them and left an infant in the care of a relative who accidentally smothered him.
The woman at the center of the controversy, and her children, are not being named by the Miami Herald to protect their privacy.
Neither of the caseworkers named in Hanzman’s order — “lead witness” Tatiana Ashley and Michelle Sales, both of the CHARLEE foster care program — remain with CHARLEE, said a spokeswoman for the Our Kids agency, which oversees private child welfare programs in Miami under contract with DCF. Ashley was fired for “performance” issues unrelated to Hanzman’s order, and Sales resigned, the spokeswoman said.
Neither woman could be reached by the Herald for comment.
DCF’s ethics watchdog cleared the two women of wrongdoing in a lengthy report last August.
The Inspector General was asked to investigate the mother’s claims in January by an Our Kids’ regional manager. The IG, Christopher T. Hirst, concluded the mother’s allegations regarding Ashley could not be substantiated without a witness to the alleged affair. Likewise, Hirst wrote that there was no proof that Sales lied on the witness stand, and that her desire to foster or adopt the children did not create a conflict of interest.
DCF’s interim secretary, Esther Jacobo, who was leading DCF’s Miami district when much of the controversy unfolded, said Friday her agency is most concerned with the future welfare of the mother’s children — not with what has already occurred.
“The claims of unethical behavior by these caseworkers were thoroughly investigated by the DCF inspector general and not substantiated. Now, two years later, our attention must be centered on these children — their safety, security and emotional health. With all the information and facts in hand, my sincere hope is that the judge will do what is best for the safety and well-being of these children.”
Hanzman’s return of the four children occurs at a time of deep animosity between the judge and Miami child welfare administrators.
Earlier this week, a Miami infant born with medical concerns owing to his mother’s drug use died at the home of his adult half-sister in Broward. Hanzman, records show, sent the boy to live with his half-sister over the objections of DCF lawyers, an Our Kids foster care provider and the Broward Sheriff’s Office, which had conducted a study of the woman’s home and concluded she was not fit to care for the boy. Records suggest the half-sister may have accidentally smothered the infant while sleeping with him on a couch.
The mother at the center of Hanzman’s order this week emerged from a troubled home herself, sources told the Herald. Now 23, the woman “aged out” of foster care at age 19 with four small children, and sources say DCF continues to harbor serious concerns about her ability to raise the kids.
In July 2010, the agency’s hotline received a report that the mom and the youngest child’s father had an altercation. The children remained “safely” in the mother’s care, the judge wrote, until March 2011, when a relative complained that the father had pulled a gun on him.
When DCF was alerted to the incident by the mother, the agency placed all four children in foster care. Two months after that — and after the mom had mostly completed a laundry list of tasks designed to improve her parenting skills — the woman was arrested on a shoplifting charge. DCF abruptly reversed course, filing a petition to terminate the woman’s parental rights.
The mother, a petition said, had been “unable to gain the necessary insight required” to safely parent her children.
At trial in August 2011, Ashley, the case worker, testified that, while the mom had completed parenting, domestic violence and anger classes, and although she was “bonded” with her children, Ashley had “concerns as to her parenting,” the judge wrote.
As to the youngest girl’s father, the one who had allegedly wielded a gun, Ashley was far more complimentary. She testified that he was always “appropriate” in his visits with the little girl, and that she had no concerns about his parenting skills. Ashley recommended that he retain rights to the now-4-year-old daughter.
Sales, the order said, worked with the mother and her kids from October 2010 through the following January. Sales dropped the case, she testified, because she became fearful of the mother following a fight she witnessed between the mother and another woman. The mother insists that no such incident occurred, the judge wrote.
At a hearing on the mother’s concerns over the fairness of her trial, and in comments to the inspector general, Ashley strongly denied having a sexual relationship with the father. The father himself acknowledged the affair. The caseworker had begun “flirting” with him “while the two were in her car discussing what he had to do to get his daughter back,” the man testified. “They eventually wound up in the back seat having intercourse,” Hanzman wrote.
And, although the inspector general wrote that there were no witnesses, the father’s brother testified that he was at his mother’s house when the father and Ashley were in a bedroom having sex.
The mother of the children arrived at the father’s house in August 2011 while he and Ashley were “fooling around” in a back bedroom, the father testified. The father’s brother alerted him that the mother was walking up the stairs to see him. She confronted the couple and hit the father with a mop stick, the judge’s order said.
The caseworker, the father testified, told him that neither she nor CHARLEE were eager to sever his rights to the youngest child. He said he failed to disclose the sexual relationship out of fear that it would interfere with his custody rights.
As to Sales, numerous people — including several employees of CHARLEE — testified that she wanted to adopt the children.
So concerned were CHARLEE administrators about Sales’ desire to adopt the kids that they asked an Our Kids boss if it made sense to transfer the case to another foster care agency “to avoid any kind of conflict of interest.” The administrator, Hanzman wrote, refused the transfer request. Another judge who was presiding over the case was never told about the alleged conflict.
That omission, Hanzman wrote, “can only be charitably characterized as blatant incompetency.”... "

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/08/v-print/3740811/mom-gets-children-dcf-gets-skewered.html#storylink=cpy

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

Saturday, November 9, 2013

A Republic, Not A Democracy. New Deal or Double Dealing?

" ... It was under Wilson that the first huge legislative steps to break down what the Romans would have called "our mixed constitution" of a republic, and convert it into the homogenous jelly of a democracy, got under way with such measures as the direct election of Senators. And it was under Wilson that the first great propaganda slogan was coined and emblazoned everywhere, to make Americans start thinking favorably of democracies and forget that we had a republic. This was, of course,
the slogan of the first World War: "To make the world safe for democracy." If enough Americans had, by those years, remembered enough of their own history, they would have been worrying about how to make the world safe from democracy. But the great deception and the great conspiracy were already well under way.

New Deal or Double Dealing?

The conspirators had to proceed slowly and patiently, nevertheless, and to have their allies and dupes do the same. For in the first place the American people could not have been swept too fast and too far in this movement without enough alarms being sounded to be heard and heeded. And in the second place, after the excitement of World War I had sunk into the past, and America was returning to what Harding called "normalcy," there was a strong revulsion against the whole binge of demagoguery and crackpot idealism which had been created under Woodrow Wilson, and which had been used to give us this initial push on the road towards ultimate disaster. And during this period from 1920 until the so-called great depression could be deliberately accentuated, extended, and increased to suit the purposes of the Fabian conspirators, there was simply a germi-nation period for the seeds of destruction which the conspirators had planted.

Not until Franklin D. Roosevelt came to power in 1933 did the whole Communist-propelled and Communist-managed drive again begin to take visible and tangible and positive steps in their program to make the United States ultimately succumb to a one-world Communist tyranny. Most conservative Americans are today well aware of many of those steps and of their significance; but there are still not enough who realize how important to Communist plans was the two-pronged drive to convert the American republic into a democracy and to make the American people accept the change without even knowing there had been one. From 1933 on, however, that drive and that change moved into high gear, and have been kept there ever since. ... "

There is an eight page PDF titled:

"Robert Welch founded The John Birch Society in 1958 and led it until just prior to his death in 1985. This essay was first delivered as a speech at the Constitution Day luncheon of We, The People in Chicago, on September 17, 1961.
The principles he espoused in that speech are timeless. The American Republic will endure only so long as those principles
are sufficiently understood by each succeeding generation of Americans."


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