The children come first. The goal is reunification.

General chat area for anything that doesn't fit in elsewhere.

Moderators: family_man, LindaJM

User avatar
Momof31995
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 8:58 pm

Postby Momof31995 » Mon May 22, 2006 8:45 am

me too but i am not Naive enough to think this is the end we will still be under supervision until atleast when we go back to court in september where the judge can decide we no longer need supervision or to extend it for 6 more months.God forbid.
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny, when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson

Dan Sullivan
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
Location: Long Island, New York

Postby Dan Sullivan » Mon May 22, 2006 9:05 am

Bob_Lynn wrote: This is another very good point Momof31995. CPS wants the family to fail, this is why if you jump through their hoops which they try to make impossible, even if you happen to succeed, they will only give you more hoops to jump through. These "hoops" are not about getting your family's act together, they're all about getting you to fail them so they can drag you into court to tell the judge you're not complying.

So why in hell should you create your own hoops to jump through as advised by Dan? In the first place, they won't likely be acceptable because they're not the ones CPS wants and in the second place, see above.


Momof31995 prevailed over CPS by "taking the caseplans to our attorney to be submitted in court with our objections and corrections. then we won in court having reasonable efforts on our part and NO reasonable efforts on the agencies part."

Is that not plain enough?

A win because of reasonable efforts.

Was florida999's win over CPS not plain enough?

They won because they took a proactive position.

Looks like two out of two, to me.



Bob_Lynn wrote: And I'm not the one who first made this observation, this has been posted on AFRA for years.


So what?

You mean it's on the internet so it has to be true?

If I'm not mistaken, AFRA has a very low success rate against CPS.

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Postby Bob_Lynn » Mon May 22, 2006 9:05 am

Right on the money Gideon, you throw everything at them IN FAMILY COURT that you can possibly find, then if the judge rules against you, you have many arguments on appeal.

And this is the biggest problem with many lawyers that advise to "just go along with CPS" and it will all go away. This is exactly what our first lawyer advised and we ended up suing him for malpractice. These lawyers either have no clue how to defend CPS victims or they just don't because they're part of the system.

And most unfortunately, the average person has even less of a clue what they should do in such a situation. In most cases, they are like a "deer in headlights" as someone else aptly put it. We were no different.
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. Edward R. Murrow

Dan Sullivan
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
Location: Long Island, New York

Postby Dan Sullivan » Mon May 22, 2006 9:38 am

Bob_Lynn wrote: "Yet the Constitution is the ultimate law and the minute anyone walks into any courtroom, whatever the charges, criminal or civil, the primary defense is Constitutional law"

Dan Sullivan wrote: It doesn't state in the Constitution that someone can't sell illegal drugs from their home... so if CPS removes children from a home because it's used for illegal drug sales is the Judge required to return the children because it's not in the Constitution?


Bob_Lynn wrote: It also doesn't doesn't state in the Constitution that a serial killer should go to jail and be executed, should he then be set free because it's not in the Constitution?


Dan Sullivan wrote:Someone might get that impression because you wrote "Yet the Constitution is the ultimate law and the minute anyone walks into any courtroom, whatever the charges, criminal or civil, the primary defense is Constitutional law"


Bob_Lynn wrote: Someone? Only "someone" like you who is apparently hell bent on insisting that the family court is not the proper venue to assert one's civil rights and that one should only assert their rights during the appeals process. "Someone" who doesn't understand the basics of DUE PROCESS and the Constitution.


Bob's premise is defective.

I never said family court wasn't the proper place to assert someone's civil rights... and I didn't say "one should only assert their rights during the appeals process."

Bob is making a strawman.

A straw man argument is a rhetorical technique based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.

And then hope you don't get caught.


gideonmacleish wrote: There's a big legal problem with waiting until the appeals process to argue Constitutional violations.


Please give me a few examples of Constitutional violations someone might use in Family Court after CPS has removed their children.

gideonmacleish
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:50 am
Contact:

Postby gideonmacleish » Mon May 22, 2006 10:19 am

examples? I could give several. If the children were interviewed, or the home was entered without a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances, there's a clear fourth amendment violation. Denyong the family's right to interview witnesses against them is a sixth amendment violation. Forcing them to take drug tests or psychological evaluations is a fifth amendment violation. While the judge will most likely rule against the objections, once they have been stated and are on the record, there's a strong basis for appeal. If you don't raise those objections in the lower court's jurisdiction, often appellate courts will not hear the case (just as, if you don't raise the fourth amendment objection when the social worker is at the door, you can't go back and argue a violation later).

Keep in mind, Dan, that what i am suggesting is that until an injunction or higher court ruling dismisses the lower court ruling, you should strongly consider starting services, to prepare for the possibility that you may lose in a higher court. But you should BEGIN your defense by asserting your Constitutional rights, not try to introduce them later on.

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Postby Bob_Lynn » Mon May 22, 2006 10:24 am

Dan Sullivan wrote:I never said family court wasn't the proper place to assert someone's civil rights... and I didn't say "one should only assert their rights during the appeals process."


Sorry Dan, you're now outright lying, you posted in this thread:

Dan Sullivan wrote:Would that not be because a family court isn't the forum for citing constitutional rights?

Isn't an appeal the proper forum for that?


In fact, your next question to Gideon further supports my point. Why would you ask such a question that you should know the answer to if you really feel the family court is the proper place to assert one's rights?
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. Edward R. Murrow

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Postby Bob_Lynn » Mon May 22, 2006 10:30 am

General CPS Constitutional violations are:

1st, 4th, 5th, 7th (if you're denied a jury trial), 9th, 11th, 13th and 14th Amendments. In my opinion, there's also an 8th Amendment violation but the Supreme Court already overruled this (total nonsense). I can elaborate on all of these if anyone asks.
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. Edward R. Murrow

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Postby Bob_Lynn » Mon May 22, 2006 10:38 am

Sorry, I forgot Article IV Section 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. Edward R. Murrow

gideonmacleish
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:50 am
Contact:

Postby gideonmacleish » Mon May 22, 2006 10:51 am

Bob,

You forgot 6th (the right to confront witnesses against youb and call witnesses in your favor).

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Postby Bob_Lynn » Mon May 22, 2006 11:54 am

Good catch Gideon, I almost have them all memorized but since they won't let me practice civil rights defense in a courtroom, I'm a bit rusty.

BTW, they also violate the Oath of Office, for which they can be charged with high treason, which is part of the Constitution.
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. Edward R. Murrow

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby Dazeemay » Mon May 22, 2006 12:53 pm

I can elaborate on all of these if anyone asks.


Okay, shoot!!

I want something I can print out for future references.
**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

Dan Sullivan
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
Location: Long Island, New York

Postby Dan Sullivan » Mon May 22, 2006 2:28 pm

gideonmacleish wrote: Keep in mind, Dan, that what i am suggesting is that until an injunction or higher court ruling dismisses the lower court ruling, you should strongly consider starting services, to prepare for the possibility that you may lose in a higher court. But you should BEGIN your defense by asserting your Constitutional rights, not try to introduce them later on.


Just to set the record straight, I never said someone shouldn't assert their rights... during the CPS investigation or in Family Court.

How long would it take for a higher court to dismiss an appeal?

How long would it take to get a decision/ruling from a higher court?

We've just seen two examples of two different families who prevailed over CPS by either taking a proactive position on services or by challenging CPS' service plan in court and demonstrating to the Judge that they made "reasonable efforts" to resolve the issues... while CPS didn't.

Is there NOTHING to be learned from what these people have done?

Florida999 got her children back in three months.

And Momof31995 made fools out of CPS in court (it took much too long, I'm sorry to say).

Look at what got accomplished, look HOW it got accomplished, and then recommend the SAME strategy and tactics to all the newbies who come here in the same situation!!!

What does the Judge see most of the time?

A family who didn't complete a service plan (regardless of the fact it was filled with unnecessary and inappropriate services) OR a family who chose not to take any services at all. CPS wins in both situations.

HOWEVER, in the rare instances where the family takes a proactive stand or the family demonstrates to the Judge that CPS failed to make "reasonable efforts" the Judge is far more inclined to rule in the family's favor.

In one of the first cases where I helped get children back from CPS, a five year old boy said while he was still in foster care "Mommy, I don't have any more tears."

I never want to see a family in an appeals situation.

Best, Dan

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Postby Bob_Lynn » Mon May 22, 2006 3:43 pm

Keep in mind these factors.

1. All these violations are committed by CPS and/or the family court under color of law.
2. All these violations are systematic.
3. All these violations amount to a policy.

I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

CPS violates all of these in several ways.

1. Religion - CPS often victimizes families for practicing religions that they don't approve of. They often abridge the practice of children's religions by either placing them in foster homes that are not of the same religion or ones that do not allow those children to practice their religion.

2. Freedom of Speech - CPS often issues "gag orders" to parents as to what they can or can't say and to whom (especially their own children).

3. Freedom of the Press - CPS often forbids parents to publicize their case.

4. Assembly - Just try to organize a demonstration to get your children back and see what happens.

IV. 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.

This Amendment is most commonly brought up with regard to CPS violations. There are only 4 ways CPS may be able to search a home and/or seize children: A warrant, a court order, imminent danger and exigent circumstances. In some states, such as Pennsylvania, only the first 2 are authorized. CPS violates this Amendment time and time again.

V. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

1. Witness against himself - CPS often violates this part by using threats (usually that they will steal the children) in order to get a "confession" out of the parent(s).

2. Deprived of Liberty - This is self-explanatory, once CPS invades your family, all of the family is deprived of liberty, especially the children who are incarcerated in foster "care". And of course, no DUE PROCESS is afforded.

VI. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

1. In most states if not all, there are laws on the books that make it a crime to reveal the name of the person who reported the family to CPS.

2. CPS often tells their victims they don't need an attorney.

VII. In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Family court judges and some states, deny a trial by jury. Some would argue that there is no value over $20 in a child custody case, I would ask, how much is a child worth? Or a family's sanctity?

VIII. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Although the Supreme Court ruled that this Amendment only applies to a criminal case, in my opinion, that's totally bogus because there's nothing in the 8th Amendment that even hints at that and they've managed to convolute the entire Amendment (I read the opinion - the dissenting opinion was a thing of beauty).

IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This is a catch-all Amendment that protects all rights of all citizens that are not listed in the Constitution.

X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

My apologies when I said Amendment 11 in an earlier post, Amendment 10 is the one I meant. What this says is basically POWER TO THE PEOPLE and not power to CPS. CPS works for WE THE PEOPLE and not the other way around as they'll have you believe and act.

XIII. 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. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The minute the children are placed in foster "care", they are placed in a slave-like environment. The children are also subject to "adoption", which means that they are sold, much like slaves. Children are often put to work in foster "care", without compensation.

XIV. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The above is only Section 1 of 5 sections, sections 2-4 are not applicable and section 5 reads "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article".

1. CPS often abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens and deprives them of liberty without DUE PROCESS. Illegal search and seizure under color of law amounts to PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS violations. Most of the other DUE PROCESS violations, including threats, imposition of unlawful preconditions to reunification, policies that violate constitutional rights, etc. amount to SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS violations.

2. There is no equal protection of the laws when CPS victimizes families.

Article III Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


All government workers must take an Oath of Office to preserve, defend and protect the Constitution. A violation of such an Oath may warrant a charge of High Treason against the United States.

Article IV Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Citizens individually are sovereign and therefore have privileges and immunities against CPS invasions under color of law.

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

I think the above says it all in terms of Constitutional issues being a major part of one's defense in ANY court, especially the family or juvenile court.

Please feel free to correct, criticize or comment on any of the above.

Note, none of the above constitutes legal advice, just my very biased opinion.
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. Edward R. Murrow

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Postby Bob_Lynn » Mon May 22, 2006 3:56 pm

Dan Sullivan wrote:Just to set the record straight, I never said someone shouldn't assert their rights... during the CPS investigation or in Family Court.


Right Dan. Do you actually believe people can't read your blatant lies?

Dan Sullivan wrote:How long would it take for a higher court to dismiss an appeal?


You purposely "fail" to see the issue and you once again prove the point that you're lying by asking this particular question (dismiss an appeal???). This is not about an appeal, it's about asserting your rights in the family court. If you don't, you may end up losing your children and may even have the higher court dismiss your appeal because you have nothing to appeal.
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. Edward R. Murrow

Dan Sullivan
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
Location: Long Island, New York

Postby Dan Sullivan » Mon May 22, 2006 4:30 pm

Bob_Lynn wrote:
Dan Sullivan wrote:Just to set the record straight, I never said someone shouldn't assert their rights... during the CPS investigation or in Family Court.


Right Dan. Do you actually believe people can't read your blatant lies?


Do you never get tired of being discredited, Bob?

Dan Sullivan
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
Location: Long Island, New York

Bob gets caught again.

Postby Dan Sullivan » Mon May 22, 2006 4:31 pm

Dan Sullivan wrote:I never said family court wasn't the proper place to assert someone's civil rights... and I didn't say "one should only assert their rights during the appeals process."


Bob_Lynn wrote: Sorry Dan, you're now outright lying, you posted in this thread:

"Would that not be because a family court isn't the forum for citing constitutional rights?

Isn't an appeal the proper forum for that?"


Not only are you not an attorney, Bob, but apparently you don't know the difference between a statement and a question.

Those are two QUESTIONS, Bob.

And I asked those questions in response to your statement "I'll bet if you ask 500 attorneys if you should make constitutional claims in a family court, all 500 would advise against it."

And then came my two questions, "Would that not be because a family court isn't the forum for citing constitutional rights?

Isn't an appeal the proper forum for that?"

And you responded with " You must always fight for your rights, whether the lower courts recognize it as a defense or not, the higher courts do."

And to that I responded with " That would be in an appeal to a higher court after the lower court made an unfavorable decision against the family, correct, Bob?"

And finally you responded with "You're assuming the lower court made an unfavorable decision after you asserted your rights."

See the premise, Bob?

"assuming the lower court made an unfavorable decision after you asserted your rights."

Thanks for helping me demonstrate you're trying to create a strawman, Bob.

I couldn't do it without YOU!!!!

Are you man enough to apologize for accusing me of "outright lying" when you obviously are WRONG?

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Postby Bob_Lynn » Mon May 22, 2006 4:53 pm

Your nose gets bigger with each post Dan. "Strawman", right Dan, good one, do you cha-cha too?

What you deliberately "fail" to see, is that you make a statement when you ask the type of questions you ask, especially ones you should know the answers to as a purported "advocate" with allegedly 18 years of experience.

Personally, I like the Samba.
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. Edward R. Murrow

Dan Sullivan
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
Location: Long Island, New York

Postby Dan Sullivan » Mon May 22, 2006 5:28 pm

Bob_Lynn wrote: Your nose gets bigger with each post Dan. "Strawman", right Dan, good one, do you cha-cha too?

What you deliberately "fail" to see, is that you make a statement when you ask the type of questions you ask,


Questions are questions, Bob.

Questions are not statements... no matter how much you wish they were.

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Postby Bob_Lynn » Mon May 22, 2006 6:26 pm

Sure Dan, I understand. Same with the thread you started for the purpose of ridiculing my point on Constitutional rights, it was really only a question, right? Thanks for clarifying that for me cha-cha man.

Strawman Bob.
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. Edward R. Murrow

Dan Sullivan
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
Location: Long Island, New York

Postby Dan Sullivan » Mon May 22, 2006 6:46 pm

Bob_Lynn wrote:Sure Dan, I understand. Same with the thread you started for the purpose of ridiculing my point on Constitutional rights, it was really only a question, right?
Strawman Bob.


Ridiculing you, Bob?

Get over yourself.

The thread I started doesn't have a single word of your's in it.

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Postby Bob_Lynn » Mon May 22, 2006 6:58 pm

Dan Sullivan wrote:The thread I started doesn't have a single word of your's in it.


You are joking right? You quoted me in the very first post that is also the title of the thread you started (copied below). Be careful not to step on your nose.

Bob Lynn wrote "Yet the Constitution is the ultimate law and the minute anyone walks into any courtroom, whatever the charges, criminal or civil, the primary defense is Constitutional law."
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. Edward R. Murrow

Dan Sullivan
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
Location: Long Island, New York

Postby Dan Sullivan » Tue May 23, 2006 6:03 am

Dan Sullivan wrote:The thread I started doesn't have a single word of your's in it.


Bob_Lynn wrote: You are joking right? You quoted me in the very first post that is also the title of the thread you started (copied below). Be careful not to step on your nose.

Bob Lynn wrote "Yet the Constitution is the ultimate law and the minute anyone walks into any courtroom, whatever the charges, criminal or civil, the primary defense is Constitutional law."


That's not the thread I was talking about.

I was referring to "Why I never want to see a family in an appeals situation."

It was in that thread you asked why I started that thread and then asked "Why did you start another thread disguised as a question when it was obviously meant to ridicule what I posted regarding using Constitutional law as a primary defense (not the first time either)?" and that's why I thought you were referring to that thread.

Please, post your questions in the thread you're referring to so you won't cause confusion.

A link would also help to alleviate the problem.

See below.


http://fightcps.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... highlight=

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Postby Bob_Lynn » Tue May 23, 2006 6:37 am

Dan Sullivan wrote:That's not the thread I was talking about.


Try not to act dense on top of being an outrageous liar please. It doesn't matter what thread you were talking about, it was exactly the thread I was talking about when I said you started a thread intentionally to ridicule what I posted regarding using Constitutional law. And it was worded in the form of a question, which supports my point that a question is not always question just because it has a question mark at the end of it. In this case, it was meant directly for the purpose of RIDICULE. Does that alleviate your mental cobweb or you still want to cha-cha?

Listen, this nonsense is done, it's very obvious to anyone with half a brain that you don't support the strategy of constitutional defense in the family court, you've pointed that out several times in many different ways, including ridicule. To support it you would have posted something, anything in support of that strategy and the fact is you never did, just the opposite. You can try to dance out of this all you want, it's old and it's very transparent. I'm done with this idiot discussion, I've proven my point and you helped me prove my point with your blatant lies.
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. Edward R. Murrow

gideonmacleish
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:50 am
Contact:

Postby gideonmacleish » Tue May 23, 2006 8:42 am

Dan Sullivan wrote:Is there NOTHING to be learned from what these people have done?


See, this is where you lose me, Dan, with all due respect. What you seem to be saying, essentially, is that the ends justify the means; e.g., as long as your children are returned home, it doesn't matter that you must spend the remainder of your life in slavery to the state. The Constitution is not some esoteric abstract that exists only in an ideal plane; it is the standard by which our government MUST operate. When they fail to do so, it is our duty as citizens to hold them accountable.

CPS' very authority is grossly unConstitutional, and yet we accept it. We accept it because we want to believe our government is acting in our best interests and would never enact legislation to harm us. And while I doubt that many of our legislators would intentionally do so, they ARE doing just that.

What about MY fight, Dan? What about the fight of many families that HSLDA has profiled who have STOPPED CPS AT THEIR DOORSTEP by asserting their fourth amendment rights? Are you telling me that because I prevented the removal of my children, my experience is any less valid? You say that families don't prevail standing on their Constitutional rights; yet many HSLDA cases would beg to differ (before you start, while HSLDA IS a homeschool organization, many of the cases they take deal with the very same issues we are discussing).

You say you don't want to see families in the appeals process, Dan. Would you rather see families wrongly convicted, without due process and shamed into submission by a government that was NEVER intended to have such power?

gideonmacleish
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:50 am
Contact:

Postby gideonmacleish » Tue May 23, 2006 8:47 am

Bob_Lynn wrote:
This Amendment is most commonly brought up with regard to CPS violations. There are only 4 ways CPS may be able to search a home and/or seize children: A warrant, a court order, imminent danger and exigent circumstances. In some states, such as Pennsylvania, only the first 2 are authorized. CPS violates this Amendment time and time again.



I have to beg to differ with you, Bob. According to Christopher Klicka, there are THREE ways they can enter (imminent danger is, essentially an exigent circumstance:

1. Warrant
2. Exigent Circumstances
3. Consent

The fourth amendment does not provide for a court order. It requires "a warrant, sworn by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the ersons or things to be seized". This is VITALLY important, as anonymous reporting cannot be used to procure a warrant, as you can't swear an oath or affirmation anonymously.


Return to “Round Table”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests