Friday, December 30, 2011

The Jurisdictionary Show - Mon. 6-8pm CST

"The Jurisdictionary® Show"
God, Government, and The Gospel Mystery
Mondays 6-8 pm CST
Dr. Frederick Graves with Special Guest Katherine Graves
Government is an unruly child that must be managed and economized by an enlightened People. But, people lost in the darkness of their own self-interest are neither enlightened nor entitled to the benefits of our Republic. I've been an attorney since 1986, winning cases in state and federal courts by applying the same tools, tactics, and simple procedures explained in our popular step-by-step self-help course.
I started in 1997, because I know how easily you can be injured in court, whether you're struggling on your own or paying your hard-earned money to a lawyer who may not do everything that should be done. You need to know what should be done to win - whether you have a lawyer or not. Protect yourself from other members of my profession!

On this show, we will discuss these things in a positive tone, with an eye toward hope buoyed by good intentions and the public's willingness to take responsibility for the dreadful things our government is being allowed to do by learning how to use their court-power and then using it!

I will attempt to stimulate people to SEE that the problems we face are the result of widespread lack of knowledge about the fundamentals of God, Government, and The Gospel Mystery - 

Three things I will do my best to explain in a way that everyone can understand and hopefully, will be encouraged to call in to discuss. I will cite scripture, law, court rules, and other authorities to back up the views we will present: God beyond the view of religionists. Government constrained by principles. And The Gospel Mystery that injects lives with a wisdom and willingness that transcends our mortal skills. We will endeavor to gather an audience anxious to learn more and also to participate - offering their own POSITIVE input.
Now YOU can know how to win ... with or without a lawyer!
Related Information Now Available (Best Reference in Plain English to set up your Law Book)
"Standing in the Shadow of the Law", 4th Edition

May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
 GranPa Chuck

Monday, December 12, 2011

The 6 Types Of Lawsuits

Below is one of the many emails received from Jurisdictionary . This particular email is an explaining of "Two Kinds of Law"


Types of Lawsuit Complaints ...
( From "How to Win" Step-by-Step Self-Help Course )


Types of Complaint - Jurisdictionary

Know the 6 types of lawsuit complaints.
Every lawsuit starts with a complaint.
Click the image to download full-size PDF chart!

See how easy it is?
  1. The plaintiff in the chart sues Defendant A and Defendant B.
  2. Defendant B counter-claims against Plaintiff.
  3. Defendant A cross-claims against Defendant B.
  4. Defendant B counter-cross-claims against Defendant A.
  5. Defendant A files a third-party complaint against Third Party Defendant.
  6. Third-Party Defendant counter-claims against Defendant A.
That's all there is to it!
See how easy it is?
Lawsuits are "ridiculously easy-to-understand" once the Jurisdictionary step-by-step self-help course shows you how the parts fit together.

  • If you have a lawyer, you'll know what your lawyer should be doing!
  • If you don't have a lawyer, you'll know what it takes to win!
The course offers many diagrams just like this plus charts, sample forms, simplified explanations, and practical tactics that give you power to win ... with or without a lawyer!Learn from Jurisdictionary step-by-step

It's not rocket science.
It's straight-forward once you see the step-by-step procedures and how they're controlled by a simple set of rules an average 8th grader can understand.
Everyone knows a baseball game has at least 9 innings.
Everyone knows the visiting team is first to bat.
Everyone knows the batter goes back to the dugout after 3 strikes.
It's simple.
It's baseball.
It's America!
Lawsuits are just as easy as baseball, once you see them with the explanations and examples the course provides.
Not many people know how simple lawsuits really are. My profession has kept this knowledge secret from you on purpose!
It shouldn't be that way!
Now YOU can know how to win ... with or without a lawyer! Jurisdictionary<<Learn More
OR, even better
Related Information Now Available
"Standing in the Shadow of the Law", 4th Edition
(Best Reference in Plain English to set up your Law Book)

May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
 GranPa Chuck

Monday, December 5, 2011

Your Deposition Power the Court Arena

Getting in on the Record

Know When, Why, What, and How ...

Slay your opponent with depositions!
Happy DepositionBut!
Like other tools in your "Lawyer's Little Red Toolbox", depositions are best used:
  1. At the right time,
  2. For the right reason,
  3. In the right way!
A deposition is not a friendly coffee-klatch!
It's not a "social event".
Beware of sneaky lawyers, who'll try to turn the serious fact-finding business of deposition into a friendly "conversation".
Do not allow it.
When you see it coming, stop it immediately!

  • Depositions are designed so you can go after facts, any facts, that might lead to the discovery of "admissible evidence". The rules are fairly loose. You can ask questions and get answers that you could not get later at trial, where the rules of evidence are more strictly enforced.

But, some lawyers try to lull deposition witnesses into a false sense of security by being "friendly", asking questions about Aunt Suzy's recipe for butterscotch cookies or where Uncle Bill spent his vacation last year. This is done not to get at relevant facts but to trick the witness into "chatting", getting you and the witness off-guard so improper questions can be "popped" while you day-dream about how many quarters you put in the parking meter outside.

"I understand you're quite a golfer, Mr. Witness."
Red flag!

The lawyer is setting things up to go beyond the scope of allowable questioning. The next thing you know, the witness will complain about the exorbitant country club dues he pays. Or, he may brag about his success on the links in Las Vegas last summer. Answers that may give your opponent power to defeat you!
  • Don't be duped.
  • Your opponent's lawyer doesn't care a thing about the witness' golfing.
  • He's on a fishing expedition.
  • He's after something else.
Here's the rule that constrains depositions to facts (explained fully in the official Jurisdictionary

The scope of discovery (requests for admissions, requests for production, interrogatories, depositions, and subpoenas) is limited by the rules to finding facts that are "reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence!

A golfer's handicap has nothing to do with his mortgage or child support or where he was last summer!
"Objection! Goes beyond the scope of discovery!"

If the other side continues to abuse the rule, you have the right to terminate the deposition and file a motion with the court for an order directing the lawyer to keep within the rule.

  • On one occasion in my 25 years as a case-winning attorney, the lawyer on the other side was so devious and his insurance company client so evasive, I forced the judge to appoint a special master to sit in on the depositions and rule on my objections then-and-there. I got the evidence I wanted out of that evasive executive, and the insurance company settled with my client the day before trial!
  • In another case the opposing lawyer was so ridiculous, I required the judge to order the lawyer to bring his client to the courtroom and answer questions under oath in front of the judge. That was the end of his sneaky tricks.

There's much more you need to know to successfully use depositions in your case. It's all in the course. Other blogs on Deposition >>
If you don't already have the official Jurisdictionary course, now's the time to Order
and start learning before you end up kicking yourself!

You will learn
  1. When (waiting until you know more about the case),
  2. Why (getting witnesses under oath before trial),
  3. What (knowing which facts you need to get)
  4. How (handling the deposition with tact and tactics)
Know how to use the rules!
Far too many good people lose in court because they don't know how to control the lawyer on the other side or the black-robed judge on the bench. They may have the "law on their side", but they will lose if they don't know how to control a deposition (for example) or when to proceed to deposition or how to draft a proper motion or why it's important to make courtroom objections, etc.
Is winning your case worth $249?
My law school education cost me tens of thousands and three years of diligent study.
The practical experience I gained defeating crooked lawyers and controlling corrupt judges for 25-years is priceless!
My education and experience can be yours!
Another Document vital to your library, now available as a download for $10.50
Don't be fooled by the value of this document. It is in plain English based on a Family Advocate with over a decade of experience dealing with and supporting those defending themselves. Parents, Lawyers, and even judges have praised the information found in this document.

Although, this information was inspired by those in Administrative Hearings, it has information valuable to all no matter what court Family, Juvenile, and/or Criminal Court.
  • Do you know the importance of Documentation?
  • Do you know the basics of our Legal System?
  • Do you know the importance and how to set up your Law Book?
  • Do you realize issues against you is based on proving "You are the Worst Person in the World?" However, too many times, based on little proof. Your defense is to get on the record that you were actually doing the right thing, based on documentation and using the statutes for your state. Actually too many times, it has been found that the only "Bad" person was those in the agency itself since they were Not Following the statutes they are bound to.
It is vital whether you seek the assistance of a lawyer or not to know the statutes for your state particular to your state. Don't wait for others to assist you, in your time of need. You must take the offensive and become an advocate for yourself to protect your family.
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
 GranPa Chuck
    Defend Yourself>>

Thursday, December 1, 2011

How to Win the Game of Law ...

 Below is one of the many emails received from Jurisdictionary . This particular email is an explaining of "Two Kinds of Law"

There are two (2) kinds of law!
( From "How to Win" Step-by-Step Self-Help Course )
The Game of LawIf you want to win, you must know this.
Too many good folks lose believing "the law" is on their side, but have no idea there are two (2) kinds of law!

Even if one kind is on your side", you lose if you don't know both kinds and how to use them tactically!

Most losers never know why they lost.
  • They blame the judge. They blame the justice system. 
  • They blame the party on the other side. 
  • They seldom blame themselves for assuming they knew all they needed to win.
They could have won, if they knew BOTH kinds of law and how to use them tactically!

Take foreclosure, for example. You may give a lender all those required federal notices without receiving a single reply as required by law. You think your case is golden. The "law" is on your side ... but do you know the other kind of law and how to use it tactically?

You may fight over taxes, breach of contract, lost wages, child custody, or something else, and you know "the law is on your side" ... but do you know the other kind of law and how to use it tactically?.
There are two (2) kinds of law!
  • The first we call "substantive law". This determines the outcome of a case based on admissible evidence.
  • The second kind we call "the rules of court". The rules determine what admissible evidence will be considered, who gets to talk, what issues will be heard, etc.
The Rules of Court are, simply:
And, they're easy to learn!

Too many good people foolishly rush into court demanding the judge enforce substantive law in their favor without knowing the first thing about the rules of court or how to use them tactically).

They're like someone sitting down to play a game of cards and being dealt a winning hand, without knowing the first thing about the rules of the game or how to use the rules tactically to win.
It doesn't matter if you have the winning hand (i.e., substantive law) if you don't know the rules of court and how to use them tactically to win.
  • Those who know how to use the rules tactically do win consistently!
  • Those who don't lose ... consistently!
Do you know how to draft proper pleadings, file effective motions, set hearings, make objections that stick, force the judge to do what's right, ... ?

Do you know how to find your evidence, get your evidence admitted, keep your opponent's evidence excluded, cross-examine witnesses, ... ?
Don't assume you'll win because "the law is on your side".

Imagine three chess players:
  • Player #1 doesn't yet know the rules
  • Player #2 knows how to move the pieces but doesn't know how to move them tactically
  • Player #3 has been playing chess 25 years and not only knows how the pieces move but also how to move them tactically to checkmate his opponents
Which are you?
  • Are you like Player #1 who doesn't yet know the rules? If so, you cannot hope to win!
  • Are you like Player #2 who knows the rules but doesn't know how to use them tactically?
  • Would you like to be like Player #3 with 25 years of case-winning experience?
Your choice. Win ... or lose?

Just having "the law on your side" is not enough!
If you don't know how to use the rules tactically to win, you lose!
The people you're up against probably know the rules, but even they may not have 25 years of case-winning experience to master the tactics that you can learn in a single weekend.

Take advantage of my experience and learn how to use the rules tactically to win!
Related Information Now Available (Best Reference in Plain English to set up your Law Book)
"Standing in the Shadow of the Law", 4th Edition

May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
 GranPa Chuck
    Defend Yourself>>

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Offers of Proof in Court ...

Below is one of the many emails received from Jurisdictionary . This particular email is on the importance of getting your "proof" on the record.


If you start to offer evidence and, before you can get it before the court, the other side objects and the judge sustains your opponent's objection, you must move the court to allow you to make clear on the record what your evidence was and what it would tend to prove!
 This is called making an offer of proof.

Your opponent may do this, too, so read on to learn how it works ... or risk losing needlessly!
Offers of proof may be made at a trial or at any hearing when your opposing party objects to your "evidence" and the judge sustains your opponent's objection.

An offer of proof shows the court on the record:
  • What the offered evidence is and
  • What the evidence tends to prove
Failure to get your evidence admitted will destroy your chances of winning!
If you don't get your evidence admitted and don't make an offer of proof, you'll have nothing to appeal if you lose!

You must keep the judge aware that you are prepared to reverse him on appeal, if he foolishly chooses to make appeal necessary by ruling against you!

If you don't make an offer of proof, the record will not show what the evidence would have been, and there'll be nothing in the record for the appellate court to review! If the appellate court has no way of knowing what evidence the judge excluded, you cannot win on appeal. Appellate courts will not examine evidence that wasn't made part of the record at the trial level.

  • You can't introduce evidence for the first time on appeal.
  • Like the baseball umpire says, "Them's the rules!"
  • When your attempt to get evidence into the record is prevented by the court's sustaining the other side's objection, do what my course teaches and tender an offer of proof.
Show the court on the record:
  1. what the offered evidence is and
  2. what the offered evidence would tend to prove if admitted
It's not enough to show what your evidence is. You must also explain on the record what the evidence would tend to prove if admitted. In this way, you show the judge what the appellate court will review if the judge rules against you. And, if the judge knows your evidence should be admitted, he may decide to let it come in rather than risk being reversed on appeal.

Get your evidence in ... or else you have no "evidence".
If you can't get your evidence in, you lose!
Related Information:
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
 GranPa Chuck
    Defend Yourself>>

Monday, November 21, 2011

How to Read Legal Statutes ...

Know What the Law Actually Says!Crystal Ball

One of the biggest case-losing mistakes is mis-reading statutes (and other legal documents).

If you don't know what the law actually says, you'll have a devilishly hard time getting a judge to agree with you!

Understanding the "rules of statutory interpretation" is essential.

  • Statutory language must be interpreted according to well-established "rules of statutory interpretation". The rules of statutory interpretation are vital to your case ... if you want to win!
  • You need to know how courts interpret what Congress or your state legislature meant when they wrote the law!
Too many otherwise clever people "assume" they know what a statute says, when the only opinion that counts is what the controlling appellate courts say the statute says.
Appellate courts apply the rules of statutory interpretation. You must also!
Learn these rules ... if you want to win!

For example, the primary rule of statutory interpretation statutes is the "Plain Meaning Rule".
  • This rule requires judges to give words in the law their "plain meaning" - what an ordinary reasonable person would believe a word means in the context of the statute where it's found.
Judges should never be allowed to play games with lawmakers' words.

If a reasonable person would read "bicycle" to mean a two-wheeled engine-less vehicle powered only by legs and feet, no judge should allow a party to stretch the meaning to include mopeds or motorcycles.

Judges should be compelled to agree that a law says "plainly" what it means and mean nothing more. But, sometimes judges and lawyers will twist the words to reach an outcome they desire. YOU must know how to handle these situations and put a stop to it before it causes you to lose your case!

Judges should always interpret words in the law according to the plain meaning rule ... but, sometimes the "plain meaning" to one person is not the "plain meaning" to another.

Therefore, you must always do your legal research to determine how the controlling appellate courts read the the laws that affect your case. (How to do legal research is explained in my official 24-hour, step-by-step Jurisdictionary "How to Win in Court" course.
So? What if the meaning is plain but the context is confusing?

Other rules (taught in my course) will help.

For example, according to the rule of "ejusdem generis" (simply Latin for "of the same type"), judges are required to interpret general terms at the end of specific lists as including only things of the same type as those specifically mentioned in the list. If a statute (or contract or any legal document of any kind) lists "oranges, grapefruit, lemons, and other fruit", the doctrine of ejusdem generis limits the phrase "other fruit" to mean other citrus fruit. Apples and pears are not included. The courts may assume lawmakers intended by "other fruit" all the many types of citrus: kumquats, limes, tangelos, etc. When lawmakers list items of similar kind, then say "and other" (or similar words), the doctrine of ejusdem generis limits the word "other" to include only items of the same type.
You need to know this stuff if you want to win!

To learn more about law, courts, and how to control judges and overcome crooked lawyers, order my affordable 24-hour Jurisdictionary self-help course at once and get your competitive edge ... before it's too late.
Know how to control the court - or you will surely lose!
Related Information Now Available (Best Reference in Plain English to set up your Law Book)
"Standing in the Shadow of the Law", 4th Edition

May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
 GranPa Chuck
    Defend Yourself>>

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Your Right to Know the Nature of the Investigation

Before You or Your Children Are Questioned
In the Beginning 
Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003
 (CAPTA, Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act)
Summary~Full Text

This Act has two provisions to help protect children and families during child abuse investigations. 
  • First, it requires CPS workers to be trained in their duty to protect the statutory and constitutional rights of the very people they are investigating. 
  • Secondly, CPS workers are to tell people involved in an abuse or neglect investigation what the complaint or allegation is that has been made.
~~BUT... Has this Really Happened??~~
Here is an introduction to topics one may want to explore for the protection of their Family:

Related Reading: 
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
 GranPa Chuck
    Defend Yourself>>

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Join the Cause against Judicial Corruption

Join the Cause

One click to say you want HONESTY in government.

Also below these reports join and watch an important show on Nov. 20th.
Check it out.

Corruption Reports

Sexual Misconduct
Criminal Acts
Search All Reports
U.S. Senators
U.S. Congressmen
Law Enforcement


Ron Branson on Lawless America Show -- Sunday November 20, 2011 - 5-7 pm ET

The Lawless America Government Corruption Crisis Online TV Show will be held Sunday November 20, 2011 from 5 to 7 pm ET.  
Our special guest is Ron Branson of
It's an Online TV Show using Shovio technology.  Just register at, and then tune in at 5 pm by logging in at  Watch it right there!

Be sure to tune in Sunday, November 20, 5 to 7 pm Eastern Time at

Supreme Court Pro Se Committee

Thought this link might interest some. Please keep in mind, no matter if you seek council of a lawyer or not, it is important that you know the statutes, policies, etc. particular to your concerns.

For those in Family Court, here is a very good starting point. It is State Statute Summaries based on certain issues in our family courts>>

So do read the information below. Hey, it isn't easy, but at least do some research so you can understand the basics.

Supreme Court Pro Se Committee

The United States Supreme Court has recognized that natural persons have a right to represent themselves, which it described as "a basic right of free people." Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). Nebraska has said that an individual may represent him or herself and participate in trials and legal proceedings on his or her own behalf. Waite v. Carpenter, 1 Neb. App. 321, 496 N.W.2d 1 (1992)(citing State v. Warford, 223 Neb. 368, 389 N.W.2d 575 (1986). The Nebraska Constitution at art. I § 13 provides that "all courts shall be open, and every person, for any injury done him or her in his or her lands, goods, persons or reputation, shall have a remedy by due course of law and justice administered without denial or delay." This provision is often referred to as the "open courts" clause. It is in the spirit of these laws that the Nebraska Supreme Court Committee on Pro Se Litigation was formed. For more information on the Pro Se Committee’s projects, click on the links below:

What is Self-Incrimination

(Found on NFPCAR web page & developed by our member, Panda
Link: )

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand jury. . . nor shall any person be subject for the same offense 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. U.S. Const. Amend. V
The Fourteenth Amendment provides, in part: "....nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const. Amend. XIV.
Let's get this clear.  If you are being questioned by officials of any type, you have a Constitutional Right not to shoot your mouth off to them and spill your guts about everything you know (or even don't know) to be reinterpreted by them, which may or may not  land you in jail with criminal charges filed.

How can you take back any statements once they've been uttered? Remember the WWII slogan, "Loose Lips Sink Ships"? It certainly applies here. CPS doesn't have to get a guilty verdict in a court of law to devastate your family and your children. They can just put you in the hot seat, try you in the court of public opinion and watch your life unravel like pulling a loose string on a hand-knit sweater. They don't have to hit a bull's eye for the collateral damage to take its toll. You may even never be charged criminally and could still wind up loosing custody and your parental rights terminated. You still loose your children and the State wins -- gloating all the way to the bank.
There is also no law for you to help them prove or win any case they might be trying to build against you or a loved one. In fact, you have the Right against self incrimination according to the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Case workers or investigators will go on "fishing expeditions" for information that may or may not be related to an incident that suddenly gets blown all out of proportion. Do not give them fodder to chew on. They are not your minister, priest, or rabbi; they are also not your parent, counselor, or friend. They have their own agendas in the course of an investigation and it does not include looking out for your Constitutional Rights. In fact, they will try their best to threaten, intimidate, and cajole you into telling them what they want to hear, regardless of your Rights.

Their goal in the course of their investigation is to find you guilty - of something, ANYTHING, because then it justifies their existence. The more people that are found guilty, the more money that flows into the coffers of whatever department you have, per chance, come across.

Asserting your innocence does no good, because everyone is guilty of something if you dig long enough. They may not be able to pin a murder charge on you because there's no body (evidence), but what about jaywalking, littering, or spitting on the sidewalk? Well, you must have done the crime, right? Otherwise you wouldn't have been charged in the first place by this nice official who has all the "right" credentials. It becomes a case of "he said/she said". When you're dealing with a stacked deck, who wins? The person who owns the deck!

The authorities are all familiar with each other. They see each other on a regular basis. They conduct their business together all the time. In fact their very jobs are dependent upon money being brought in. Courtrooms are full of citizens being brought in by various governmental departments.  Police, sheriff, code enforcement, dog catcher, you name it. And all these governmental players have friends in the courthouse since they are there so often. They are all playing on the same team folks!
They want you to play with them with their own stacked deck, but they don’t tell you that it’s stacked.  This is why we have constitutionally guaranteed Rights to help you deal with the "stacked deck."   This is even if you didn't know the deck was stacked in the first place! If you don't assert your Rights, it is as good as if you didn't have any.   If you don't know what your Rights are, how are you going to let them protect you?   If you willingly talk with investigators, you are giving up Rights that protect you. At this point, you have waived them and you have consented to abandon your Rights. Why should you? Why do you want to help them "win" their case?  Why do you want to give them ammo for their gun?   They want you to play with them with their own stacked deck, but they don't tell you it's stacked.  
It's probably because you don't remember your high school civics class, how to be a good citizen by knowing and asserting your Rights to better balance the power between yourself and the authorities. You have also been watching too many brain numbing shows in which the suspect willingly gives up their Right to remain silent before they talk with their attorney. Monkey see, monkey do! You have to stop that right now. 

Now is the time to install the proper "software" in your hardware (your brain) on how to deal with contacts with the authorities.   Watch these videos to help you remember:
"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, 189 F.3d 808 (1999).
Remember, learning about and knowing your Rights and respectfully asserting them during encounters is no guarantee that your Rights won't be violated.   But, it does help diffuse a situation before it becomes all blown out of proportion, with reason and logic having gone out the window - for both sides.
The key is to be respectful.  Even if  the other side isn't doing the same to you, be kind in your replies to them.  Do this if it takes every ounce of willpower you can muster. It puts them off guard.  It also lets the investigator know that you are not just some hick that fell of the turnip truck yesterday, and they cannot  run roughshod over you willy-nilly. Besides, you do have your tape recorder or video camera running, right?   (Don't think about posting to You Tube just yet - better talk it over with your legal counsel.)
You want to make sure that you not only have a cool demeanor in dealing with these people, but that you look like the one who is the innocent party in this whole situation, and that you have your act together!   You can wig out, scream, cry, or whatever, in the safety and comforts of your own bedroom after these guys are gone.   Do not let them see you are intimidated or cowed by their behavior.  But, neither do you want to come off cocky or like a smart aleck.   If there is any time to be calm, cool and collected, this is that time. 

Sunday, November 13, 2011

UPDATE: Newly added Summary of State Statutes

The following topics will be incorporated in our Summary of State Statutes” shown below.

Child Welfare Information Gateway E-lert! June 2012

  • Collection of Family Information About Adopted Persons and Their Birth Families
Summarizes State laws regarding the types of information that are required or permitted to be collected on adopted persons and their birth families.
  • Court Hearings for the Permanent Placement of Children
Provides State laws on the court hearings that must be held to review the status of children placed in out-of-home care.
  • Immunity for Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect
Reviews State laws on immunity from liability for persons who in good faith report suspected instances of child abuse or neglect.
  • Who May Adopt, Be Adopted, or Place a Child for Adoption
Summarizes State laws regarding eligibility for becoming an adoptive parent, eligibility for being adopted as a child or adult, and authority to place a child for adoption.
Please feel free to pass this link to others in their time of need.

Throughout the years, myself and others, have suggested to the staff of Child Welfare Information Gateway to create summaries based on certain concerns. The information presented on this page is a result of their work. The only additional step I have done, as keeper of the NFPCAR website, is to Index the information and made this part of our States’ Index (Link:

Here are the “Key Issues” addressed:
Don’t need to tell anyone there have been reams of statutes created. However, hopefully, this page will help to get one in the right direction of the statutes written based on your concerns.
Searching the NFPCAR website

Since the inception of this website in 2001 by one of our members, Linda, there are now over 700 pages of information, and many more to be added. Here are 2 places to search information:
  1. Google search box in the left column of our Home Page.
  2.  Subject Index  As with many pages, this is a “Work in Progress”
May you Find Strength in Your Higher Power,
Granpa Chuck

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Case-Winning Paperwork - Part 1

Below is one of the many emails recieved from Jurisdictionary . This particular email is an Excellent example of how to organize your paper work to defend your self.
  • Yes, you can purchase  Jurisdictionary for $250
  • Yes, you can hire a lawyer for Thousands
However, over the last decade, we have encouraged everyone whether they have a lawyer or not to "Know the statutes, policies, etc. for their state, particular to their concerns.

Plus, recognize one of the basic Tricks the agency plays on the unsuspecting defendant. They are trying to make you look like "One of the Worst People in the World."

Your challenge is to show that you indeed have done all the Right Things. And must get this information "On the Record" in Clear and Concise Terms.

So do read the information below and hopefully one can understand how to defend themselves. Not an easy task, but your presistance and the will to "Never Give Up" will hopefully give you a fighting chance. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

( Information from "How to Win" Step-by-Step Self-Help Course - Jurisdictionary )
Want to drive your opponents nuts?Tie them down with word-power!
I've been a lawyer since 1986, and what I tell you here (and with more details in my "How to Win in Court" step-by-step self-help course) will empower you to stuff your opponents in a neatly-packaged word-box and win your case hands-down!

Many lawyers never understand this ... so they lose, needlessly.

Most pro se people never understand this, either ... so they lose, needlessly.

The key is nothing harder than writing simple sentences.
  • Short sentences.
  • Powerful sentences.
  • Sentences with ONE VERB.
  • Sentences with ONE SUBJECT.
Sentences that EACH HAVE THEIR OWN PARAGRAPH NUMBER! That's right. Every sentence gets its own paragraph, and each of those paragraphs has a separate number. (The course gives sample forms to show you how.)

One sentence per numbered paragraph. One subject. One verb. And only the absolutely necessary adjectives and adverbs.If it's important to note that your opponent's nose was gigantic, say so. Otherwise, leave it out! Too many adjectives and adverbs just complicate your case unnecessarily, give the other side more things to argue about ... things that ultimately have nothing to do with what it takes to win!

A sentence is a complete thought. Mrs. Edgerton taught me that in Second Grade. It's helped me win countless court battles.

Every simple sentence starts with a capital letter, ends with a period, and contains just one verb, and just one subject. No commas or semi-colons unless absolutely, positively necessary and for a purpose that promotes your cause!
Consider these two sets of numbered paragraphs:
Set 1
  • Defendant was very forceful and convincing when he said he would spray my strawberry plants every week during the four months I was away on business in Europe shopping for priceless art treasures for my adorable wife, however he did not at any time while I was gone spray my strawberries, because he was off playing poker in Las Vegas and losing his shirt, so I lost most of my strawberry crop this year to tiny green bugs that ate the beautiful white strawberry blossoms before my plants could bear their luscious fruit.
  • I paid defendant $2,000 before leaving for Europe, and he didn't ask for any more money, so I assumed he would do what he said he would do, but he didn't, so I lost a great deal of money.
  • This is why I have sued him.
Set 2
  • Plaintiff and defendant entered a written agreement.
  • Copy of agreement attached as Exhibit A.
  • Defendant promised to spray plaintiff's strawberries with insecticide from 5 December 2009 through 15 April 2010.
  • Defendant agreed to do the job for $2,000.
  • Plaintiff paid Defendant $2,000 on 1 December 2009.
  • Defendant failed to spray plaintiff's strawberries.
  • Plaintiff suffered money damages exceeding $15,000.
Each sentence has it's own paragraph number.
Each sentence has one verb, one subject.
Each sentence has minimal adjectives or adverbs.
Each sentence is a complete thought.
There can be no doubt what your words mean!
Winning in court is all about effective communication.
Communicate effectively with simple sentences.
Related Information Now Available
"Standing in the Shadow of the Law", 4th Edition

May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
 GranPa Chuck
    Defend Yourself>>

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Supreme Court Defines Abuse

Things must be getting very bad for CPS that they will do anything to justify their position that they'll jump on any situation, to the extent if a child gets hurt because the parent blinked at the time the child was injured, then justify their position by saying the parent shouldn't have blinked.

This is like the case in (if I remember right (senior moment) Ohio where the parent was told she had to have a daycare license to "baby sit" the children not taking into consideration her driveway is a school pick up and drop off point.
'Home Alone' Bungle Did Not Rise to Level of Child Neglect, Court Says
Michael Booth All Articles
New Jersey Law Journal
August 08, 2011
A woman who inadvertently left her 4-year-old son in an empty house while she went out to dinner may not have been a model parent, but neither did she deserve to be pilloried on the state Child Abuse Registry, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on Monday.

"There exists a continuum between actions that are grossly negligent and those that are merely negligent," wrote Justice Virginia Long for the unanimous Court in DYFS v. T.B., A-21-10. "The parent's conduct must be evaluated in context based on the risks posed by the situation."
The incident occurred on March 25, 2007, a Sunday night. Between 7 and 7:30 p.m., the woman, given the pseudonym "Susan" in the opinion, and her son "John" returned to the Atlantic Highlands home they shared with her mother and stepfather, "Mary" and "Jim." Mary's car was in the driveway and she normally stayed home on Sunday nights. Susan also believed Mary would be home because she had been suffering from the flu.

Unbeknownst to Susan, however, Mary and Jim had gone on an impromptu trip into New York and were not at home. Susan put John to bed and then went out to dinner with a friend. John woke up at around 9 and, realizing he was home alone, crossed the street to a neighbor's house. The neighbor then went to a neighbor, who was a police officer.

Susan returned home at around 9:30 and was questioned by the police. They did not charge her but did notify the Division of Youth and Family Services, which, despite a ruling by an administrative law judge, later made the finding of neglect, saying Susan violated N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.1(c)(4)(b). DYFS then listed her name on the Child Abuse Registry.

"It is by mere fortunate happenstance that no actual harm befell the young child," DYFS said in its finding.

An Appellate Division panel affirmed DYFS' finding, and Susan appealed to the Supreme Court.
Long said the primary point of contention was the interpretation of the phrase "failure … to exercise a minimum degree of care" in the statute.

Though Long said this was a "close case," especially since she did not actually check to see if her mother was at home before she left for dinner, it appears that Susan acted only negligently.
"In other words, every failure to perform a cautionary act is not abuse or neglect," Long said. "When the failure to perform a cautionary act is merely negligent, it does not trigger section (c)(4)(b) of the statute.

"A parent who looks away for a moment in a playground may be negligent, but that is not what the Legislature intended to interdict by the 'failure … to exercise a minimum degree of care' language in section (c)(4)(b)," she said. "[A]lthough Susan was plainly negligent, she was not grossly negligent or reckless in the actions that led us here."

The Court ordered DYFS to remove the woman's name from the registry.

Susan’s lawyer, Red Bank solo Lynn Staufenberg, says the ruling “means that parents do make mistakes” and can’t be held to a standard of perfection.” She adds that this set of facts is not the type that the statute was meant to prevent.

Mary McManus-Smith, an attorney with amicus Legal Services of New Jersey, agrees. “The Court made it very clear that not every parenting mistake is abuse or neglect,” she says.

Deputy Public Defender T. Gary Mitchell, who filed a brief on behalf of the Office of Parental Representation, says “New Jersey families can breathe easier by this decision, which reestablishes a balanced perspective in child welfare law in New Jersey that is at once fully protective of the safety of children and equally prudent in ensuring that families are not needlessly and punitively second-guessed after the fact by the state.”

Lee Moore, a spokesman for the Attorney General’s Office, which represented DYFS, says officials there would have no comment on the ruling.