Marina, I found this on Research Resources and I felt it should come on this thread. It is more examples you gave of Dec of Facts etc.
Declaration of Facts - Examples
by Marina » Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:00 pm
Declaration of Facts - Examples
http://www.uwosh.edu/faculty_staff/palm ... risch1.htm
removal of 9 children from their parents due to a cut on a child's face, a one time situation which was described both by the child and the mother as an accident;
removal of children directly from school with no chance to say goodbye to parent, to get a reasonable explanation of the trauma of not being allowed to return home after school;
when the children failed to return home after school, the mother went to school to find out what happened, and was told her children were victims of child abuse and were being taken directly to foster homes;
the mother was taken by police with no attorney present, no records of the interrogation and pressured to admit that she had abused a child;
when she failed to come to work because she was in jail, she was fired;
the mother was put in jail for four days…although the children were already removed from her care;
the family secured an attorney and took their life savings (several hundred dollars) to pay a retainer;
there were numerous times when no interpreter was provided and in some cases, the interpreters may not have been familiar with court terminology and practice;
they had no funds to pay for a trial, so faced with the possibility of losing all their children in a trial, they chose to plea bargain to a lesser charge and their children were ordered to be retained in foster care. Having plea bargained, she never had a chance to deny that she had done anything to harm her children;
the family had some income supplements through food stamps and energy assistance, so when their children were removed, they became impoverished because the income supplements are based on the number of people in the family - they went from 11 to 2.
They couldn't move to a smaller house because they hoped to get their children back and would need the house.
while the probation worker was telling the family "don't yell at your children", the social workers were saying "you have to raise your voice at your children, otherwise they won't behave." You can imagine how difficult these rules were to this family.
in order to see their children, they had to travel to have supervised visitation with their children in various towns and locations; they had to meet with probation officers, social workers, lawyers. They were exhausted and anguished by what they had to do to get their family back together.
the mass production system of protective service meant that there were intake workers, then social workers, also case workers, family paraprofessionals, but none of them helped the family with tangible resources, claiming they had to go to other workers in other departments. Whenever there seemed to be a need, the social workers told them to see some other social worker or program. In one or two instances, they reapplied but were turned down…because their new family size did not qualify them. Some resources were promised, but never delivered.
In desperation to have enough income to get their children back, the mother went to work - nights - in Ripon. The social workers' response was; that's up to her if she wants to go back to work. There was no comprehensive plan to see if all the children were at home, would they requalify for benefits so that they could manage financially without her working. Considerable time was spent by the social workers to try to get the parents to ask family members to care for the children. I don't think the social workers ever considered that probably the incident that started this whole agony was because she was working to try to make enough money to provide additional money for the family.
Because of the confusion of what one social worker was doing and what others were doing, I asked the social workers if the parents could request a copy of their social service records. I was told emphatically that those records were not accessible to the parents. I, however, called the supervisor and was told of course the family members could have access to their own and their childrens' records.Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5289
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:36 pm
Private message Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit postDelete postReport this postInformationReply with quote Non-CPS Statement, but helps you visualize what to write
by Marina » Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:11 pm
Statement of Facts -- REALLY bad hair day
This is not a CPS case, but helps you visualize how to explain what happened.
Title: Texas Police Brutality
http://truedemocracy.net/s01/3a2.html There is "previous article" and "next article" that explains more of the situation.Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5289
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:36 pm
Private message Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit postDelete postReport this postInformationReply with quote Statement of Fact -- Texas, Bruce Perkins
by Marina » Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:22 pm
Statement of Fact -- Texas, Bruce Perkins
Accused of sexual abuse, serving time, based on repressed memory syndrome.
http://www.ncrj.org/Perkins/Marina Moderator
Posts: 5289
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:36 pm
Private message Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit postDelete postReport this postInformationReply with quote Truth Affadavit- Utah- Amanda Marie Simons
by Marina » Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:24 pm
Truth Affadavit- Utah- Amanda Marie Simons
http://www.constitutionalconcepts.org/statetruth.htm "Now that I have established the facts from which to present my case I will proceed to do so.
FACT 21 - On September 8, 2004, I took my youngest daughter, Savannah, to Primary Children's hospital as a result of an emergency situation.
FACT 22 - I was told by The Division of Child and Family Services staff at Primary Children's Hospital that they considered the situation to be an accident and no action was contemplated by The Division of Child and Family Services. The doctors even suggested that her problem may be sleepwalking, which is something we had never considered because we had not confronted sleepwalking before. After our own investigation among other family members we find that many of the aunts, uncles, and cousins were prone to sleepwalking, sometimes even into their later lives.
FACT 23 - On the very next day, September 9, 2004, I was presented with a summons from the State of Utah concerning both of my children. This was in spite of what I was told the day before, and in spite of the fact that my older daughter was in not danger, and never had been. On its face, the summons was a threat against me while the State was holding my children hostage."Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5289
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:36 pm
Private message Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit postDelete postReport this postInformationReply with quote Statement of Facts- Maryland- Sandra Ann Craig
by Marina » Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:28 pm
Statement of Facts- Maryland- Sandra Ann Craig
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume1/j1_3_3.htm "Statement of Facts
On an indictment returned by the Howard County Grand Jury which alleged no facts, and after a 14-day trial involving 29 State's witnesses and 43 defense witnesses, Mrs. Craig was convicted of child abuse, assault and related charges and received a 10-year sentence based essentially on testimony by Brooke Etze, almost seven..."Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5289
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:36 pm
Private message Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit postDelete postReport this postInformationReply with quote Statement of Facts- Texas- Case of Katie W.
by Marina » Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:38 pm
Statement of Facts- Texas- Case of Katie W.
http://www.msbp.com/forum/post-6811.html "STATEMENT OF FACTS
This statement of facts is supported by the Affidavits of Edward David Wernecke and Michele Wernecke, found in the Appendix at Tabs 5(1) and 5(2). More-detailed facts are contained in those affidavits; the following is a brief summary of the facts germane to the mandamus.
In late 2004, Katie Wernecke, then a 12-year-old girl, became sick. On January 7, 2005, Katie was admitted to Driscoll hospital in Corpus Christi, Texas to determine what was wrong with her. A biopsy was performed, and by January 13, 2005, the doctors diagnosed Katie as having Hodgkin’s Disease.
Beginning on January 15, 2005, at the instance of her parents, Edward and Michele Wernecke, Katie began multiple rounds of chemotherapy for treatment of the cancer. Numerous CT and PET scans were also performed on Katie over the course of the next several months..."
Heartwrenching, read it all.Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5289
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:36 pm
Private message Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit postDelete postReport this postInformationReply with quote Affidavit - Ralph C. Underwager, Ph.D. Licensed Psychologist
by Marina » Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:50 pm
Affidavit of Ralph C. Underwager, Ph.D. Licensed Psychologist
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~under006/Affidav ... guilt.html
II treatment program requires an admission of guilt
III no scientific data supporting
III no justification for requiring such an admission
IV violation of the Fifth Amendment rights
V right to refuse treatment
VI unethical behaviors
Fifth and Eighth AmmendmentsMarina
Moderator
Posts: 5289
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:36 pm
Private message Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit postDelete postReport this postInformationReply with quote Example of Facts from federal complaint on domestic violence
by Marina » Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:56 pm
Example of Facts from federal complaint on domestic violence
This is an important federal class action complaint where women victims of violence had their children taken, and which resulted in a favorable ruling.
Notice that the first part of section V gives the State Statutory framework,
while the second part of V gives the Facts.
http://www.lansnerkubitschek.com/news/whatnew-1.html FACTS
57. In January, 1999, plaintiff was living together with her children, the infant plaintiffs herein.
58. On January 27, 1999, Claude Barnett came to plaintiff's home and assaulted plaintiff, causing severe injuries.
59. Throughout said assault, infant plaintiff Destinee was asleep in another room, and infant plaintiff Kendell was at school.
60. Claude Barnett, the father of infant plaintiff Destinee, had separated from plaintiff prior to the birth of Destinee, and moved to another state.
61. Prior to January 27, 1999, Claude Barnett had never behaved violently toward plaintiff.
62. Claude Barnett has never behaved violently toward infant plaintiffs.
63. Immediately after assaulting plaintiff on January 27, 1999, Claude Barnett fled. Plaintiff called the police and Emergency Medical Services immediately.
64. Two police officers arrived shortly thereafter, followed by an Emergency Medical Service team.
65. The police officers interviewed plaintiff about the assault. They saw that plaintiff was bleeding profusely from a head wound, and that there was blood all over her apartment. They also saw that Destinee was asleep and that Kendell was not at home.
66. When the Emergency Medical Service team arrived, they wrapped bandages around plaintiff's head, put a collar around her neck to immobilize it, and strapped her onto a stretcher.
67. Plaintiff arranged for her neighbor to care for Destinee and to pick up Kendell from school, and was then taken to the hospital by ambulance.
68. Two other police officers came to the hospital and interviewed the plaintiff in the emergency room. The police asked plaintiff for the names of her relatives.
69. Plaintiff cooperated fully and explained that Claude Barnett had attacked her while Destinee was asleep and Kendell was at school.
70. Sometime during the evening of January 27, 1999, defendants Stropoli and Martin burst into the apartment of plaintiff's neighbor, with their guns drawn.
71. Defendants Stropoli and Martin searched the apartment, awakened Kendell and Destinee, and then announced that they were taking Kendell and Destinee away from the neighbor.
72. Defendants Stropoli and Martin brought Kendell and Destiny to the precinct house.
73. Upon information and belief, defendant Irizarry reported to the State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment (the child abuse hotline) that plaintiff had mistreated her children by engaging in domestic violence in their presence.
74. Said report was false, and defendant Irizarry knew or should have known that it was false.
75. Upon information and belief, said report was transmitted electronically to ACS, where the case was assigned to defendant Halstion for investigation.
76. Upon information and belief, while Kendell and Destinee were at the precinct house, plaintiff's cousin came to the precinct house and sought to take Kendell and Destinee to her home.
77. Upon information and belief, defendant Halstion instructed defendants Irizarry, Roe, and Doe not to release Kendell and Destinee to plaintiff's cousin, but rather to transport Kendell and Destinee to Halstion's office at ACS.
78. Upon information and belief, defendant Lopez transported Kendell and Destinee to ACS, and left Kendell and Destinee with defendant Halstion.
79. Upon information and belief, defendant Halstion placed Kendell and Destinee in a foster home.
80. On January 28, 1999, defendant Halstion telephoned plaintiff and told her that the City of New York had taken custody of her children. Defendant Halstion refused to tell plaintiff where her children were staying and refused to permit plaintiff to speak to Kendell and Destinee.
81. Upon information and belief, on or about January 28, 1999, agents of defendant Scoppetta transferred plaintiffs' case to defendant Clark for investigation.
82. Upon information and belief, defendant Scoppetta assigned defendants Degannes and Victorin to supervise defendant Clark. Upon information and belief, defendant Scoppetta assigned defendant Williams to supervise defendants Degannes and Victorin.
83. Upon information and belief, on February 2, 1999, defendant Clark, acting with the consent and pursuant to the directives of defendants Williams, Victorin, and Degannes, commenced child protective proceedings against plaintiff in the Family Court of the State of New York, Kings County.
84. Said defendants alleged that plaintiff had neglected both of her children by engaging in acts of domestic violence in front of infant plaintiff, Destinee and that the January 27 incident was only one of several such acts. Defendant also swore that Claude Barnett hit infant plaintiff Kendell on the mouth. Said allegations were false and defendants Clark, Victorin, Degannes, and Williams knew or should have known that the allegations were false.
85. Upon information and belief, on February 2, 1999, defendant Clark, acting with the consent and pursuant to the directives of defendants Williams, Degannes, and Victorin, obtained an order from the Brooklyn Family Court, ex parte, permitting defendants City and Scoppetta to retain custody of infant plaintiffs Kendell and Destinee.
86. Defendants detained Kendell and Destinee until February 18, 1999, when defendants finally released the infant plaintiffs to plaintiff. Plaintiff never consented to the detention of the infant plaintiffs.
87. During the three weeks that Kendell and Destinee were in defendants' custody, defendants failed to send Kendell to school.
88. After releasing the infant plaintiffs to plaintiff, defendants continued the Family Court proceedings against plaintiff for six more months, during which time plaintiff was required to appear in court on many occasions.
89. Upon information and belief, on March 15, 1999, defendant Clark, acting through the attorney for ACS and with the consent and pursuant to directives of defendants Williams, Victorin and Degannes, obtained a warrant from the family court for plaintiff's arrest.
90. Defendant Clark procured the warrant by providing false and misleading information to the Family Court.
91. Defendant Clark knew or should have known that her representations were false.
92. Agents of defendant Safir arrested plaintiff on April 7, 1999, pursuant to said warrant.
93. Plaintiff was held in custody for most of the day, and was finally released in the late afternoon or early evening.
94. Finally, on August 5, 1999, defendants Scoppetta, Williams, Clark, Victorin, and Degannes withdrew all charges against plaintiff.
95. Upon information and belief, defendants Scoppetta, Williams, Clark, Victorin, and Degannes, despite withdrawing all charges against plaintiff, made an administrative determination that plaintiff had neglected her children.
96. Upon information and belief, defendants Williams, Clark, and Degannes notified agents of defendant Johnson that plaintiff was a neglectful mother.
97. Agents of defendant Johnson accordingly placed plaintiff's name on their list of abusive and neglectful parents in the State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment.
98. Defendant Johnson and his agents will disseminate the information that plaintiff's name is on the List of abusive parents to any prospective employers in any field that involves working with children.
99. Plaintiff will be unable to obtain employment in any field that involves working with children as long as her name is on the List.
100. Plaintiff is entitled to an administrative hearing to clear her name.
101. Plaintiff requested such a hearing more than a year ago, and defendant Johnson still has not scheduled such a hearing.
102. Within ninety days after the claim herein sued upon arose, plaintiffs caused a notice of claim in writing to be served upon defendant City. Said claim has not been paid, and more than thirty days has elapsed since the service of the notice.Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5289
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:36 pm
Private message Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit postDelete postReport this postInformationReply with quote by Marina » Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:08 pm
http://www.michbar.org/journal/article. ... olumeID=52
(Plain Language in writing Legal Affadavits)
Writing to the Trial Judge
by Wayne Schiess
• Write a brief synopsis of the main point of the affidavit and identify the affiant.
• Keep the synopsis to 40 or 50 words.
• Put the synopsis up front, indented, and in boldface type.
A bold synopsis for the original affidavit might look like this:
This affidavit, by Kenneth Ivey’s supervisor Dennis Ragley, explains that Ivey was demoted because he missed his shift—after his cat had died—and because he did not find someone to cover his shift. Ivey was not demoted because he is a male.
This bold synopsis tells the reader, in a brief and forceful way, the critical point of the affidavit, right up front. Beginning affidavits this way benefits both the writer and the reader.
The writer benefits because creating the bold synopsis makes you think hard about what you’re asserting in the affidavit. The bold synopsis helps you to focus your writing on the critical point. It makes you articulate your point, succinctly.
Readers benefit because the bold synopsis allows them to quickly grasp the point of the affidavit even if they do not have time to read the whole thing. But for readers, the bold synopsis is more than just a time-saver. When readers scan the bold synopsis before reading the main text, it becomes easier to follow the story in the affidavit; the story makes sense the first time through. Plus, when the ending is spelled out up front, readers tend to fit the story to the ending—and that’s persuasion.
******
Use headings to ease the reader’s way
To make affidavits more readable, easier to follow, and more inviting to the eye, use headings.
• Put headings in boldface type so they stand out.
• Use some topic headings (one or two words each).
• Use some phrasal headings—cogent phrases that preview the factual assertions.
Headings in affidavits can be very effective. They cue the reader about content and organization. They break up long blocks of text. They make documents easier to skim.
******
In this revised affidavit, the reader gets
a bold-synopsis summary right up front,
highlighted headings to guide her through the story,
and a clutter-free document that is easy to read and understand.
This is an affidavit a judge can use.Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5289
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:36 pm
Private message Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit postDelete postReport this postInformationReply with quote by Marina » Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:40 am
Public Statements by Jack and Casey He and Their Supporters Regarding the Honorable Judge Robert Childers’ Ruling on Termination of Parental Rights
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com ... ments.html