Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Are Our 4th Amendment Rights Being Challenged?

Although I may not have all the articles relating to the challenges against our US Constitutional 4th Amendment, just these articles below may make one wonder.

This is just has happened over the last year. One must remember, we have been in acceptance of Laws, unfortunately, making decisions for Our Families for hundreds of years.
Just for reference, here is the wording of the 4th Amendment: Search and Seizure: “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.”

Seems very clear to me. But there is much discussion on this basic wording. Just do a search on the 4th Amendment and you will see what I mean.

As a Family Advocate, this is perhaps the most important amendment we have for the protection of our home and family.

As the keeper of the web files for nfpcar.org (National Foster Parents Coalition for Allegation Reforme), I like to call this the First Phase of the Allegation Process. Basically stating
“If there is “No Proof” of immenent danger in your home,
“DON’T let them in!!!”

Here is our web page relating to your 4th Amendment and your Miranda Rights:
Show Me the Law>> http://nfpcar.org/Miranda/
Also, there is a great quote on this page:
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
(translated: Who will protect us from our protectors?)

Also, do learn more about the very important "Parental Rights Amendment" >>Intro Link>> http://www.nfpcar.org/Rights/index.htm

So do pass on this information… And I am absolutely sure many can add more to the story.
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
  GranPa Chuck
    Defend Yourself>>


Just Added>> Free to Search and Seize By David K. Shiple, Published: June 22, 2011, New York Times




Miranda & You: Speak Up After Recent Supreme Court Ruling!

June 1st, 2010
On June 1st, the Supreme Court of the United States drastically limited the Miranda rights of those detained by the police in Berghuis v. Thompkins, 08-1470. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that an individual must verbally invoke his or her right to remain silent. Remaining silent no longer invokes the Miranda right and the police may continue to interrogate a detainee until that person verbally states their intention to remain silent. Newly appointed Justice Sotomayor dissented in a strongly worded opinion that criticized the Court’s ruling because it provides for a suspect to waive his or her Miranda rights, without showing or stating this intention, by remaining silent and not speaking.

Parental Rights At Risk: Maryanne Godboldo

Read the full article explaining the saga of the Godboldo family at MLive.com HERE. There but for the grace of God go any number of us seeking to do right by our own children. This is less to do with autism than it does with pure parental rights.  Learn more at:



Stealth Vaccine Laws Allow Children to Consent to Vaccines

(NaturalNews) A current California bill, AB 499, would "allow a minor who is 12 years of age or older to consent to medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease."[1] That is, children as young as 12 will be able to get a Gardasil or other STD vaccine without their parents' knowledge or consent if this bill passes. Disturbingly, North Carolina has a much broader child consent law already on the books: "Any minor may give effective consent . . . for medical health services for the prevention . . . of venereal disease and other [reportable] diseases..."[2] I call these laws "Stealth Vaccine Laws" because they provide for the administration of vaccines without the word "vaccine" or "immunization" appearing in the law. Thus, they may slip under the radar of anti-vaccine activists doing electronic searches for vaccine bills and laws using those terms.

Indiana Supreme Court: No Right to Resist Illegal Police Entry into Home

Filed May 12, 2011

A jury convicted Richard Barnes of Class A misdemeanor battery on a law enforcementofficer, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor disorderlyconduct.

Barnes contests that the trial court‘s failure to advise the jury on the right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers constituted reversible error and that the evidence wasinsufficient to sustain his convictions. We hold that there is no right to reasonably resistunlawful entry by police officers. We further hold that the evidence was sufficient and affirm Barnes‘s convictions.

But then again are even those in agreement, as Supreme Court Representatives, to the importance of the privacy on one’s home?? As presented below:

Supreme Court Case Rules Use Of Deadly Force In Home Invasion Acceptable Under SC Law

By WSPA Staff
At Allen’s Arms in Greenville, everyone is aiming in the same direction.
Here there is no shortage of opinions: Gun owners like Greg Sharrett say protection is their personal right.
“With the economy getting to be as it is, people are starting to get more desperate and they're going to be trying to find a way to get things easier,” Sharrett said