Home

Courts Again Affirm Parental Rights

Leave a comment

MEDICAL KIDNAP NEWS

In a ruling issued this week by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California, the rights of families to be together was reaffirmed.

See:

9th Circuit Court Upholds Parents’ Constitutional Rights: Rules Against Arizona Social Workers Removing Children without a Warrant

The ruling of the court was made by a 3-judge panel at the 9th Circuit. Judge Marsha S. Berzon was the leading concurring judge.

The court stated:

As this court has stated repeatedly, families have a “well-elaborated constitutional right to live together without governmental interference.”

Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126, 1136 (9th Cir. 2000); accord Kirkpatrick v. Cty. of Washoe, 843 F.3d 784, 789 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc); Burke v. Cty. of Alameda, 586 F.3d 725, 731 (9th Cir. 2009); Rogers v. Cty. of San Joaquin, 487 F.3d 1288, 1294 (9th Cir. 2007); Mabe v. San Bernardino Cty., 237 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2001); Ram v. Rubin, 118 F.3d 1306, 1310 (9th Cir. 1997).

Judge Marsha S. Berzon in her concurring opinion addressed the issue of traumatizing children by removing them from their home:

I concur in the per curiam opinion in full. I write separately to emphasize why it is essential that the courts scrupulously guard a child’s constitutional right to remain at home absent a court order or true exigency.

Taking a child from his or her home, family, and community constitutes a separate trauma, in and of itself. Our cases so recognize, and so ordinarily permit that trauma to occur only after a court determination that the alternative is worse.

 

In a ruling issued this week by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California, the rights of families to be together was reaffirmed.

See:

9th Circuit Court Upholds Parents’ Constitutional Rights: Rules Against Arizona Social Workers Removing Children without a Warrant

The ruling of the court was made by a 3-judge panel at the 9th Circuit. Judge Marsha S. Berzon was the leading concurring judge.

The court stated:

As this court has stated repeatedly, families have a “well-elaborated constitutional right to live together without governmental interference.”

Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126, 1136 (9th Cir. 2000); accord Kirkpatrick v. Cty. of Washoe, 843 F.3d 784, 789 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc); Burke v. Cty. of Alameda, 586 F.3d 725, 731 (9th Cir. 2009); Rogers v. Cty. of San Joaquin, 487 F.3d 1288, 1294 (9th Cir. 2007); Mabe v. San Bernardino Cty., 237 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2001); Ram v. Rubin, 118 F.3d 1306, 1310 (9th Cir. 1997).

Judge Marsha S. Berzon in her concurring opinion addressed the issue of traumatizing children by removing them from their home:

I concur in the per curiam opinion in full. I write separately to emphasize why it is essential that the courts scrupulously guard a child’s constitutional right to remain at home absent a court order or true exigency.

Taking a child from his or her home, family, and community constitutes a separate trauma, in and of itself. Our cases so recognize, and so ordinarily permit that trauma to occur only after a court determination that the alternative is worse.

CCHR: Opposition to the Common Core State Standards is growing

3 Comments

strip banner

Citizens Commission on Human Rights of St. Louis

CCHR STL Blog and News Archive

_____________________________________________________________________________________

 “As a result of psychiatric and psychological intervention in schools, harmful behaviorist programs and psychotropic (mind-altering) drugs now decimate our schools. These programs have trampled on the rights and roles of parents and have provided society with rising crime, drug abuse and suicide rates.”

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Opposition to the Common Core State Standards is growing

Four states — Texas, Virginia, Alaska, and Nebraska — have not adopted the Common Core State Standards for public school curricula and testing. Minnesota chose to adopt only the English standards and declined the Mathematics standards.

Nine states which had previously adopted the Standards — Missouri, Kansas, Michigan, Georgia, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Alabama, South Carolina, Utah — are having second thoughts about it in one form or another. For example, in Missouri:

HB 616 “Prohibits the State Board of Education from adopting and implementing the standards for public schools developed by the Common Core Standards Initiative” was introduced by Representative Kurt Bahr (R-102) although it did not come to a vote during the legislative session just ended.
SB 210 “Requires the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to hold public meetings in each congressional district on the Common Core State Standards” was introduced by Senator John Lamping (R-24) although it did not come to a final vote during the legislative session just ended.

In May, the Texas House of Representatives voted 140-2 to pass language prohibiting Texas from participating in the standards. Texas, however, has never adopted the standards and likely will not.

One flaw of Common Core seems to be around the assessment tests, and the maxim that “what gets tested gets taught.”

high_school_curriculum_cover-219x300Critics also say that the whole Common Core effort is a backdoor way of establishing a national school curriculum, taking educational decisions away from the states. Amendment X to the Constitution of the United States, states that, “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.” This is taken to mean, in this context, that a national educational curriculum mandate is in violation of the Constitution. Of course, proponents of Common Core point out that these Standards are developed and run by the states, not by the federal government. On the other hand, opponents of Common Core consider it as an end-run around having a federally mandated curriculum; in other words, while it is not officially a federal mandate, there are most certainly federal incentives (read “federal dollars”) for those states who implement it. More

Minnesota Department of Health Vaccine Insanity

4 Comments

strip banner

new-logo25Marti Oakley ©Copyright 2013 All rights reserved

_____________________________________________________________________

Minnesota Department of Health: Coercion and entrapment

Question:  If vaccines actually work with any degree of efficiency (not efficacy), why would non-vaccinated individuals represent any kind of threat to the vaccinated?  Doesn’t the vaccine provide you with magical protection against whatever disease you supposedly took it for?

This opt-out was obviously not created by the people at MDH, but more likely created by lobbyists from either big pharma or from the CDC, if not both.  The clear intent of this opt-out form is to imply that the parent, regardless of the knowledge that their child is more likely to be harmed by the vaccine than from a naturally occurring virus, is an intentional attempt to coerce the parent into self-incrimination.  This is a trap and one that has been intentionally set.

_______________________________________________________________

The Minnesota Department of Health is in the process of attempting to introduce even more vaccines into the mandated schedule for children from infancy, on.  The toxic load of heavy metals, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80, fetal cell lines from aborted babies (diploids), DNA strands from non-related species such as chickens and swine, live and dead viruses, thimerisol, mercury and whatever else could be found to giving_babies_drugs-18540load the vaccines, has many parents wondering just what is really going on.  *Flu shots contain 25 micrograms of mercury. One microgram is considered toxic. By age two, most US children have received around 237 micrograms of mercury through vaccines alone. *See list below of contents of one vaccine alone**

Minnesota just recently banned formaldehyde in all products EXCLUDING VACCINES!

One childhood shot can contain as many as one million strands of someone or something else’s transfective DNA, now circulating in your child’s body.

So-called moral and social obligations that are being cited as a means of coercion to encourage parents to subject their infants, toddlers and young adults to intentional infection, heavy metal poisoning and the high risk of autism and other life long impairments, is just that: COERCION

The one size fits all approach of vaccines has produced an efficiency rate of about 34% over-all.  That means that without hand-picking an ideal group [efficacy] that could possibly respond positively to the vaccine, there is only a 34% chance the vaccine will work at all [efficiency].

Efficacy simply means that IF a selected and ideal group of candidates for the vaccine were found and isolated, the vaccine could work at least some of the time.  To find this ideal group would require extensive testing to exclude pre-existing known or unknown genetic disorders, current infections, past infections, blood work panels, and various other biological factors and medically based  information gathering. This information gathering is almost never done.

How many times has any physician done any of these tests before admonishing parents to vaccinate their child?

While harping continually on the “efficacy” of vaccines, not one of those proposing increasing the toxic load have addressed the difference between “efficacy” as opposed to “efficiency”.  Using the word [efficacy] is intentional and avoids the real issue of [efficiency].

MDH: We’ll set you up for future charges!

In their efforts to force compliance with this intentional assault on our children, the Minnesota Department of Health has responded by creating this form for parents who object to intentionally risking their children’s lifetime health with the injection of toxins in vaccines.

As is, the form is intentionally worded to imply that the parent or guardian is endangering their child(ren):

___________________________________________________

At about page 23. MDH Developed this form to have parents sign that looks like this

D.

If the parent/guardian conscientiously opposes required immunizations:

Not following vaccination recommendations may endanger the health or life of my child and others that

my child might come in contact with.

I hereby certify by notarization that:

I am opposed to all immunizations.

I am opposed to only the vaccines indicated. Vaccine(s) I oppose:

______________________________________________________

This opt-out was obviously not created by the people at MDH, but more likely created by lobbyists from either big pharma or from the CDC, if not both.  The clear intent of this opt-out form is to imply that the parent, regardless of the knowledge that their child is more likely to be harmed by the vaccine than from a naturally occurring virus, is an intentional attempt to coerce the parent into self-incrimination.  This is a trap and one that has been intentionally set.

Here is a more relevant opt out form to use that avoids the word trap included in the proposed opt out by MDH: More

TS Radio: The Wrong Headed Thinking of Divorce Courts

Leave a comment

painy

Join us this evening at 7:00 pm CST!

THUMBNAIL_IMAGE

5:00 pm PST … 6:00 pm MST … 7:00 pm CST … 8:00 pm EST

Listen Live HERE!

Callin # 917-388-4520

______________________________________________________________

Not In The Child’s Best Interest

Please join us this evening as Sherry L Palmer and Ron B. Palmer discuss their newly published book, Not In The Child’s Best Interest.

This is a ground-breaking manual on how to protect not only your rights as a parent, but also, how to protect the rights of your child during and after a divorce. This is a must-have for those parents seeking to retain all rights to their children and preventing the courts from interfering in that relationship, unnecessarily and many times, unconstitutionally.

Attorneys still lead parents to believe that they don’t have rights to their children until either the divorce court grants to them or the other parent agrees to give them to them.  The Palmer’s have written a book that expands the knowledge base for attorneys so that only divorce cases with a “genuine” violation of law can reduce a parent’s rights.

Bios:

Sherry Palmer

Sherry has experienced the terror of divorce custody battles first hand and has found a way out for us all through the U.S. Constitution. Her book on this topic is titled “Not in the Child’s Best Interest”, and is available here. If you find her articles insightful you will love her book.

Ron B Palmer

Ron is a constitutional scholar and a political activist. He focuses on parental rights in divorce. Having studied more than 100 Supreme Court opinions related to parental rights and the constitutional concepts that support those rights, Ron came to an amazing insight. The Supreme Court strongly supports that parental rights are among our oldest fundamental liberties. It is just that Divorce Courts have been allowed to ignore the Constitution. Ron intends to put a stop to this injustice perpetrated at the expense of divorced parents and children of divorce. More

PROTECT YOUR PARENTAL RIGHTS IN DIVORCE

Leave a comment

FixFamilyCourts.com

PROTECT YOUR PARENTAL RIGHTS IN DIVORCE

The Groundbreaking new book: NOT In the Child’s Best Interest will show you how to protect your rights.

THUMBNAIL_IMAGE This book is desperately needed BECAUSE:

  •  Divorce Courts will NOT protect your rights if you don’t demand it.
  •  Divorce Attorneys will NOT tell you how to preserve your parental rights in
  •  divorce.
  •  Most Divorce lawyers do NOT know how to preserve your parental rights in
  •  divorce.
  • Child custody laws and family law codes violate your constitutional rights
  • by default.

Stop the winner take all slug fest. Deny the Judge any authority to restrict or  deny your parental rights. Put your child’s best interest first by ensuring that you remain an equal parent in your child’s life.

Button-Purchase-Now-Book-NOT-in-the-childs-best-interest

PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS TODAY

If you want to keep your rights to your child, you can try trusting the default winner take all system and blindly follow your divorce lawyer’s lead. You may or may not get a fair shot at getting custody. You may or may not be in a county that supports equal rights for parents. Some counties favor women and deny fathers rights in custody battles. Some counties overcompensate for gender neutrality and deny women’s rights to custody. Without a gender bases for deciding custody, the decision comes down to the arbitrary and capricious whim of your judge. If the Judge doesn’t like you under these rules then you are simply out of luck!

Hope and protection come in the form of the U.S. Constitution and the long history of Supreme Court opinions that support parental rights. These authors have studied over 100 United States Supreme Court cases going all the way back to the eighteen hundreds to understand the source of parental rights under the constitution. This book cites over 90 of these cases and several cases from Federal Appellate Courts, and State Supreme Courts. Although this is a heavily cited and professionally written book, It is written to be easily read by non-attorneys and to be accessible for parents in divorce. This book is much more than simply the authors’ opinions. It is chock full of cogent constitutional arguments tied directly to the Supreme Court’s own words. This book tells the Supreme Court’s history of opinions on parental rights from the perspective of divorcing parents focused on their particular concerns.

There are only three things that give a Judge authority to limit or take away your parental rights, all of which the State MUST prove, and none of which are appropriate in a Divorce Proceeding. Do you know what those three things are? Inside this book you will learn about the false “best interests of the child” standard that Judges wrongly use impose their moral, religious, and political values in child custody without any fear of being overturned on appeal. What is the correct interpretation and how do you argue that effectively? If you want the terror of child custody hearings to end then you need to get the knowledge and seize the authority that is rightfully yours as a parent in America. More

Update : SB 0136 Illinois Committee Hearing

5 Comments

 

Is This A Homeschooling Lair of Learning? Truant Officer to Investigate?

 

Lynn Swearingen (c) copyright 2011 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Youtube is a wonderous thing.

On the ground reporting provides information very quickly, accurately and cleanly. In the case of Illinois SB 136, interesting terms from State Officials can be viewed. Here is one example.

Please pay careful attention at 3:30 forward where Senator Luechtefeld questions Bill Reynolds (Truant Officer) on why SB 136 is needed.

The general gist of the conversation for readers without access to video is the following:

Senator: So will you be going into the home of people even if they are doing a good job?

Truant Officer: Yes. They might need help. More

%d bloggers like this: