Category: Victims of Child Abuse Laws »

Eve Hibbits charged with Child Endangerment for Sunburns

Eve Hibbits

.She had taken her children for a fun day out at the county fair. But when police saw three of Eve Hibbits’s youngsters in their pushchairs, she was arrested – because they were sunburned.

Now – after more than a week in jail after failing to raise £10,000 bail – she could face a 15-year prison sentence on charges of endangering her children, who have been taken into care.

Last night, her arrest brought protests from civil rights observers and has startled justice officials – who say they have never heard of a similar case.

But Sheriff Fred Abdalla, who put 31-year-old Mrs Hibbits in jail, said he had no doubt he had done the right thing.

‘As soon as I looked at the children, I could tell,’ he said yesterday. ‘It looked like they had been dipped in red paint. It was 95 degrees and they were literally baking. Their skin was blistering.’

Mrs Hibbits had taken four of her children to the fairground in Steubenville, Ohio, to see their father operating an amusement ride.

During the baking hot day, a sheriff’s deputy noticed that the three younger children – a two-year-old girl and ten-month-old twin boys – were distressed and crying.

He radioed in a report to his superiors saying the mother had been walking around for hours and the youngsters looked sick.

Sheriff Abdalla said he went to the fairground and questioned Mrs Hibbits. ‘She seemed kind of slow,’ he added. ‘She didn’t seem aware of sunscreen. I had no choice but to arrest Mrs Hibbits. If I ignore this and something happens, then shame on me.’

He said one of the children had a collapsed lung through excessive crying. He left the fourth child, aged 11, at the fairground while he drove the younger children to a medical centre in Steubenville.

There, the youngsters were treated with cold compresses and released the same day. Medical centre spokesman Keith Murdock said they had second-degree sunburn.

‘Most people who get sunburned get second- degree sunburn,’ he added. ‘It means any sunburn that is beginning to blister. They were blistering. The ones that we usually get here are far worse and include third-degree burns and heatstroke.’

The 11-year-old was later picked up at the fairground, where she was crying because she could not find her parents.

Sheriff Abdalla charged Mrs Hibbits with three felony counts of endangering the children, each of which can carry a five-year jail sentence. He said prosecutors would decide what kind of penalty to seek.

‘Children’s services are going to be involved,’ he added. ‘Whatever happens, the mother has to get the message that something has to be done.’

A lawyer for the local Jefferson County public defender’s department, said: ‘It seems outrageously excessive treatment and ludicrous to threaten a mother with such excessive jail time.

‘That time is more in keeping with rape or bank robbery. Clearly the woman is at fault, but she can be helped by the community services.’

Last night, Mrs Hibbits was expected to be released on bail, after which the case will be sent to a higher court.

Be the first to comment - What do you think?
Posted by admin - December 25, 2011 at 9:49 pm

Categories: Victims of Child Abuse Laws   Tags: , , , , , , ,

CPS – Modern Day Slave System

New Massa CPS slave trade

I have had the good fortune of knowing Leonard in the early days of AFRA (www.familyrights.us) and the Internet for that matter circa 2000/2001.  Leonard was always so nice to me, understanding, and a person who I could speak to about my concerns and frustrations.  He is straight-forward and very brilliant.  If it weren’t for Leonard, I would not understand the law as I do.  If it weren’t for my knowledge, I would not have taught my child her constitutional rights. Leonard is the Harriet Tubman of this movement.  Leonard has been a father, uncle, brother, and dear friend to me.  Leonard means the world to me.  (besides he puts up with my sista-with-an-attitude side!)  :)

 

Since I am a Sista, I see things through my lens.  I have an above-average knowledge of slavery in this country.  I studied it because I wanted to understand why black families, not all but some, are really damaged.  Why are they so broken?  Why is there so much poverty, illiteracy, violence, etc.  And I can trace much of what is going on today to the problems of slavery.  Legal kidnappings did not just begin with CPS.  The states have always needed to make money off of every single person in their state.  And they have always relied on free labor.  So the best way that they can do this is with the elderly, the prison population and children.  They make them slaves of the state. When slavery ended, supposedly, in 1865 it was actually “ratified.”  Ratified means “formally approved and invested with legal authority.”

 

So that’s when the 13th amendment was adopted.  But we were taught in school that the 13th amendment states, “slavery is abolished.”  But what does abolish mean?  Well it means:

1. To do away with; annul.

2. To destroy completely.

 

But in 2000, I Google’d the 13th amendment and guess what it says?

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 

The word “abolish” appears nowhere in the amendment.  So why were we taught that?

 

That’s a rhetorical question and I will leave it that way.  But after slavery, they used LAWS to keep black people, especially black men in bondage.  The states who relied on slavery now used Jim Crow Laws to keep black people in check.  And black people worked for darn near free.  But in 1964, the Civil Rights Passage Act was passed and it officially ended Jim Crow.  But in the last thirty years, the states have been running out of money.  They cannot tax citizens otherwise we would all be in the streets looting and rioting as they are in Britain and in Philly.  So they must figure out a way to raise money.  Well, let’s see….slavery lasted 500 years and we have recorded history of how profitable free labor was to us.  And we have this new ratified amendment.  So we will use children, although there are CHILD LABOR LAWS.  During slavery, the fields were filled with kids picking cotton, pulling weeds, tending to the animals.  Don’t believe what you see in the movie “Roots.”  The older people were not out in the fields.  A slave woman would give birth to her baby by a slave man.  And the massa would come in and snatch that baby from her.  That woman would be enraged and want to kill massa.  But oops, it’s against the law for her to kill him or to slap the taste out of his mouth.  She better not even look at him like she is mad.  Or, that would be reason enough for him to rape and beat her and even stand her slave husband in front of her and murder him while she watched.  Typically, when slaves would say that “she was sent down da river,” that meant that the child was put on a boat that travelled down the muddy Mississippi  into the deep and harshest parts of the dirty South.  And that child was never heard from again.  Slaves had no legal say.

 

Today, the first thing the government does is to remove parental rights.  In doing so, parents have no legal say as to what happens to their child.  Although they are held responsible if they “kidnap” their child back or if they “cuss out a judge,” they have no legal protections because the deeper the child gets into today’s dirty South known as CPS, the child is no longer the same child.  The child becomes a slave and works for free sitting in slave quarters also known as foster homes.  And the more paperwork that they can build on parents, the more of a slave you become because even if you are not duly convicted of a crime as stated in the 13th amendment, you are smeared so badly and your nerves are so shot that it would be easy for anyone to believe the false allegations.

 

Today, black children who make up only 15% of this country’s total population, make up more than 30% of the kids in foster care.  Now definitely there are black parents that suck.  They do not have the common sense to raise kids.  But there are plenty of stories where black kids were taken away because of built-in predjudices and cultural unawareness.  Hell, I had CPS at my door because they said I neglected my daughter although I lived in an expensive gated community where we had a mini putt putt golf course and sand volleyball course in our backyard.  She had clothes, her own bedroom with a king size bed and her own bathroom.  But because I am a Black Moma and my child better not think it is okay to disrespect me and I don’t let my daughter cuss me out or run around and turn Emo and cut her wrists and wear goth like the suburb kids, then there is something wrong with me???? No that’s cultural unawareness.  Well, I knew the law, thanks to Leonard.  And my daughter knew the law because I raised her from day one to be leary of people who fake nice to collect a paychek. If I had not known the laws and what to do, then I would have likely cussed out them white folks who came to my door looking at me half crazy.  And had I done that, then I would have been labeled and my daughter would have been added to the kids who are black and “unwanted” in foster care.

 

So I say all of this to say that black kids keep the foster care system going.  They are not adopted as frequently.  So they keep the steady money flowing.  Most black parents, like me, are single and do not have money to hire an attorney.  Black kids are the “field negroes.”  But it’s the white babies and children who make the most money for the courts.  So they are like the “house negros” who resemble massa and are closest to massa.  They are placed on auction blocks at court houses all over the country and sold to the highest bidder.  The parents of these white children have money and they sell their homes, boats, cars, liquidate their stocks and bonds, and borrow from their middle and wealthy family and friends.  They are the greatest target because unlike most black youth (and parents), they naively still believe that this country is made for “you and me.”  They still have a baseball and apple pie mentality.  So they feed massa .

 

So what do I think is the solution?  Well, we need to teach our kids the law and the constitution.  When they come knocking at the door, we need to follow the law by the book.  If your child is taken away, I strongly believe that less is more.  Do not talk so much.  Do not spend so much.  The only thing you should do a lot of is DOCUMENT.  Document your entire life even before CPS shows up at the door.  You should have evidence of your life and love for your kids.  You should get letters from the school or record teachers when you visit the school so that if they say “you are doing a great job raising Johnny” then you have evidence of it.  You never know if that same person will be the one who becomes a mandatory reporter and turns you in.  And prepare your child’s case.  Record everything that CPS has done.  Every violation.  Every breach of the law and their policies.  And most importantly, study on AFRA.

 

I am sad for those of you who do not have your children with you.  But please prepare their case.  You cannot sue the state for the damage to your family.  But they did it in the “best interest of the child” so prepare a case for your child to sue the pants off of the state.  No one will listen to parents like they will our kids!

Be the first to comment - What do you think?
Posted by admin - October 1, 2011 at 3:34 am

Categories: Victims of Child Abuse Laws   Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What Does God Say About Children’s Protective Services (CPS)?

“God will not stand for what is happening to our children, and our families. His heart beats for these children. He will lift up the downtrodden. What is happening in America regarding Child Protective Services is a criminal, political phenomenon. And it must be brought to an end.”~the late Senator Nancy Schaefer~

Matthew 19:13,14

13~One day some parents brought their children to Jesus so he could lay his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples scolded the parents for bothering him.

14~But Jesus said, “Let the children come to me. Don’t stop them! For the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to those who are like these children.” 15 And he placed his hands on their heads and blessed them before he left.

Though one may be overpowered,
two can defend themselves.
A cord of three strands is not quickly broken….Ecclesiastes 4:12

 

“..they have given a boy for a harlot, and have sold a girl for wine, and have drunk it…. and have sold the children of Judah and the children of Jerusalem to the sons of the Grecians, that ye might remove them far from their border. ” – Joel 3-6

 

 

Be the first to comment - What do you think?
Posted by admin - September 30, 2011 at 3:01 am

Categories: Victims of Child Abuse Laws   Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

CPS violates these in every case (child protective services violations)

CPS violates these EVERY CASE


Print one of these up and keep it handy it for future use- Violation_Warning-Denial_Rights_under_Color_Law.pdf

 


THE RIGHTS-
The First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution

 


The Statutes-
42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15) Reasonable Efforts

 

42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(19) Relative Placement


Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights

 

Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 241

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.


Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

 

Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 242

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.


Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245
Federally Protected Activities

Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 245

 

1) This statute prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference, or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person or class of persons because of their activity as:

a) A voter, or person qualifying to vote…;

b) a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States;

c) an applicant for federal employment or an employee by the federal government;

d) a juror or prospective juror in federal court; and

e) a participant in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

2) Prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin and because of his/her activity as:

a) A student or applicant for admission to any public school or public College;

b) a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by a state or local government;

c) an applicant for private or state employment, private or state employee; a member or applicant for membership in any labor organization or hiring hall; or an applicant for employment through any employment agency, labor organization or hiring hall;

d) a juror or prospective juror in state court;

e) a traveler or user of any facility of interstate commerce or common carrier; or

f) a patron of any public accommodation, including hotels, motels, restaurants, lunchrooms, bars, gas stations, theaters…or any other establishment which serves the public and which is principally engaged in selling food or beverages for consumption on the premises.

3) Prohibits interference by force or threat of force against any person because he/she is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or class of persons from participating or affording others the opportunity or protection to so participate, or lawfully aiding or encouraging other persons to participate in any of the benefits or activities listed in items (1) and (2), above without discrimination as to race, color, religion, or national origin.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life or may be sentenced to death.


Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001
Fraud and False Statements

 

U.S. Code as of: 01/02/01

Section 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or   judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.


18 USC Sec. 1203
TITLE 18 – CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I – CRIMES
CHAPTER 55 – KIDNAPPING
Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 1203 

STATUTE

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third person or a governmental organization to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the person detained, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life and, if the death of any person results, shall be punished by death or life imprisonment.


U.S. Code as of: 01/02/01

Section 2234. Authority exceeded in executing warrant

Whoever, in executing a search warrant, willfully exceeds his authority or exercises it with unnecessary severity, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year. U.S. Code as of: 01/02/01

Section 2235. Search warrant procured maliciously Whoever maliciously and without probable cause procures a search warrant to be issued and executed, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year.

Section 2236. Searches without warrant

Whoever, being an officer, agent, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, engaged in the enforcement of any law of the United States, searches any private dwelling used and occupied as such dwelling without a warrant directing such search, or maliciously and without reasonable cause searches any other building or property without a search warrant, shall be fined for a first offense not more than $1,000; and, for a subsequent offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

This section shall not apply to any person -
(a) serving a warrant of arrest; or
(b) arresting or attempting to arrest a person committing or
attempting to commit an offense in his presence, or who has
committed or is suspected on reasonable grounds of having
committed a felony; or
(c) making a search at the request or invitation or with the
consent of the occupant of the premises.

More on Section 2236


Title 42 USC Section 1983

 

Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 42 : Section 1983

Sec. 1983. – Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia

Title 42 USC Section 1983 Information


Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141
Pattern and Practice

 

Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 42 : Section 14141

This civil statute was a provision within the Crime Control Act of 1994 and makes it unlawful for any governmental authority, or agent thereof, or any person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred, the Attorney General, for or in the name of the United States, may in a civil action obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.

Types of misconduct covered include, among other things:

1. Excessive Force
2. Discriminatory Harassment
3. False Arrest
4. Coercive Sexual Conduct
5. Unlawful Stops, Searches, or Arrests


FRAUD

 

Section 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding. (OK for system to lie?)

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to -

(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

1 comment - What do you think?
Posted by admin - November 24, 2010 at 3:35 am

Categories: Victims of Child Abuse Laws   Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Parental Rights Caselaw | United States Supreme Court

M. L. B. v. S. L. J.
519 US 102, 117 S. Ct. 555 (1996)

Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as “of basic importance in our society,” rights sheltered by the 14th Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect. This case, involving the State’s authority to sever permanently a parent-child bond, demanded the close consideration the Court has long required when a family association so undeniably important was at stake.

Santosky v Kramer
455 US 745 (1982)

The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child is protected by the 14th Amendment, and does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State. A parental rights termination proceeding interferes with that fundamental liberty interest. When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures.

Lassiter v Department of Social Services
452 US 18 (1981)

The Court’s decisions have by now made plain that a parent’s desire for and right to “the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children” is an important interest that “undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.” A parent’s interest in the accuracy and justice of the decision to terminate his or her parental status is, therefore, a commanding one.

Quilloin v Walcott
434 US 246 (1978)

We have little doubt that the Due Process Clause would be offended “if a State were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family, over the objections of the parents and their children, without some showing of unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was thought to be in the children’s best interest.” Whatever might be required in other situations, we cannot say that the State was required in this situation to find anything more than that the adoption, and denial of legitimation, were in the “best interests of the child.”

Smith v Organization of Foster Care Families
431 US 816 (1977)

In this action, individual foster parents and a foster parents organization, sought declaratory and injunctive relief against New York State and New York City officials, alleging that the statutory and regulatory procedures for removal of foster children from foster homes violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. The ruling contains an analysis of the rights of natural parents as balanced against the rights of foster parents, as well as a comprehensive discussion of foster care conditions.

Moore v East Cleveland
431 US 494 (1977)

The Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A host of cases, tracing their lineage to Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters have consistently acknowledged a “private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.” When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, the Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced.

Cleveland Board of Education v La Fleur
414 US 632 (1974)

The Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. There is a right “to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.”

Stanley v Illinois
405 US 645 (1972)

The private interest here, that of a man in the children he has sired and raised, undeniably warrants deference and protection. The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and the 9th Amendment.

Wisconsin v Yoder
406 US 205 (1972)

In this case involving the rights of Amish parents to provide for private schooling of their children, the Court held: “The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.”

Loving v Virginia
388 US 1 (1967)

In this case involving interracial marriage, the Court reaffirmed the principles set forth in Pierce and Meyers, finding that marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival. “The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

Griswold v Connecticut
381 US 479 (1965)

The 4th and 5th Amendments were described as protection against all governmental invasions “of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life.” The Court referred to the 4th Amendment as creating a “right to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully and particularly reserved to the people.” Reaffirming the principles set forth in Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Meyers v Nebraska.

Prince v Massachusetts
321 US 158 (1944)

It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder. And it is in recognition of this that these decisions have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.

Skinner v Oklahoma
316 US 535 (1942)

“We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”

Pierce v Society of Sisters
268 US 510 (1925)

The liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children was abridged by a proposed statute to compell public education. “The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”

Meyer v Nebraska
262 US 390 (1923)

“No state … shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

“While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

Be the first to comment - What do you think?
Posted by admin - September 21, 2010 at 8:03 pm

Categories: Victims of Child Abuse Laws   Tags: , , , , , ,

Fight Social Services with the 4th Amendment

It is vitally important that all families understand that Fourth Amendment freedoms can and should be safeguarded. The Fourth Amendment of the U S Constitution was adopted by the convention of states on September 17, 1787.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees that-

”the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

If you are ever approached by anyone from social services, keep in mind that regardless of what they say, most of them are certainly not there to “help” you. They may appear “nice” and “helpful,” but never lose sight of the fact that most of these individuals usually “believe” the anonymous allegations reported against a family.

If a social service representative arrives at your home with an order to investigate, ask to see their search warrant and court order. Call your attorney immediately and read the order to them. If you are unable to reach your attorney, keep the order, or ask for a copy and politely tell the social worker that you will not talk to them without your lawyer being present.

You are not required by law to talk to any of these people, so don’t.  (As of June 1, 2010, now you have to TELL them you are going to remain silent”, not that they know any law whatsoever)

Never invite a social service representative into your home. If they have gained entrance before you learn why they are there, ask them to leave. If they do not leave, call the police and request that they be removed for trespassing.

The social worker OR the accompanying police officer may threaten you with arrest for “obstruction of investigation” or something like that, or they may claim the state has passed a “law” requiring you to let them in.  This is a bald-faced LIE.

In the unlikely case that there is such a new “law” in your state, that law would be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, Fourth Amendment, and violation by the agency OR the police (if present) would be the basis of a Title 42 USC Section 1983 action, for which they would NOT enjoy “immunity” according to CALABRETTA v FLOYD.

Further, they DO have to get a VALID search warrant-

See Walsh vs. Erie County Department of Job and Family Services, Case No.3:01CV7588

In a forceful opinion, US District Judge James G. Carr wrote:

“Despite the Defendants’ exaggerated view of their powers, the Fourth Amendment applies to them, as it does to all other officers and agents of the state whose requests to enter, however benign or well-intentioned, are met by a closed door.

There is…no social worker exception to the strictures of the Fourth Amendment.

…Any agency that expects to send its employees routinely into private homes has a fundamental obligation to ensure that those employees understand the constitutional limits on their authority.”

The caseworkers in the Walsh case admitted they had never been taught anything about the Fourth Amendment or search warrants. THEY STILL AREN’T!

“The government’s interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse, but also protecting children’s interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents.” -CALABRETTA v FLOYD 97-15385

“Governments have powers; individuals have rights. The Bill of Rights was an enumeration of those individual rights – from freedom of speech to freedom of religion to the right to bear arms – that are to be protected from the intrusion of an oppressive government.” -Investors Business Daily 6-28-2010

Get more information at American Family Rights Association

2 comments - What do you think?
Posted by admin - at 6:32 pm

Categories: Victims of Child Abuse Laws   Tags: , , , , ,