~~~~
- Here is "Model State Legislation- Parental Due Processes Act"
- In addition, watch the Video at the end of this Blog, and do pass it on.
It was Created in CA, but do Pass On to those that are Active with their Legislators in Their State.
http://nfpcar.org/States/Summary/Model_State_Legislation.pdf
http://nfpcar.org/States/Summary/Model_State_Legislation.pdf
Contents of Major Topics in Bill
Model State Legislation -Parental Due Process Act ................................................................................ 4
A BILL ............................................................................................................................................................ 4
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. ......................................................................................................................... 4
SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. ................................................................................................ 4
SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS. ......................................................................................................................... 5
SECTION 4. HEARINGS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. .................................................................................... 6
SECTION 5. TRIAL BY JURY ........................................................................................................................ 6
SECTION 6. RELIGIOUS/CULTURAL/MORAL/ETHNIC VALUES AND BELIEFS OF PARENTS ...... 6
SECTION 7. ELECTRONIC OR DIGITAL RECORDING OF INTERVIEWS ............................................ 7
SECTION 8. EVIDENCE IN FACT-FINDING HEARINGS .......................................................................... 7
SECTION 9. RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL .................................................................................................. 7
SECTION 10. WAIVER OF RIGHTS ............................................................................................................. 7
SECTION 11. IMMUNITY ............................................................................................................................... 7
SECTION 12. DAMAGES ............................................................................................................................. 8
SECTION 13. ATTORNEYS FEES ............................................................................................................... 8
Model State Legislation -Parental Due Process Act ................................................................................ 4
A BILL ............................................................................................................................................................ 4
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. ......................................................................................................................... 4
SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. ................................................................................................ 4
SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS. ......................................................................................................................... 5
SECTION 4. HEARINGS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. .................................................................................... 6
SECTION 5. TRIAL BY JURY ........................................................................................................................ 6
SECTION 6. RELIGIOUS/CULTURAL/MORAL/ETHNIC VALUES AND BELIEFS OF PARENTS ...... 6
SECTION 7. ELECTRONIC OR DIGITAL RECORDING OF INTERVIEWS ............................................ 7
SECTION 8. EVIDENCE IN FACT-FINDING HEARINGS .......................................................................... 7
SECTION 9. RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL .................................................................................................. 7
SECTION 10. WAIVER OF RIGHTS ............................................................................................................. 7
SECTION 11. IMMUNITY ............................................................................................................................... 7
SECTION 12. DAMAGES ............................................................................................................................. 8
SECTION 13. ATTORNEYS FEES ............................................................................................................... 8
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
View the Video
- We are requesting people willing to help us focus on the issue of Due Process (lack thereof) in Family court. If you have a story, know whistleblowers, etc...
- We are respectfully requesting you forward this link to EVERYBODY you know and post it on every bulletin board you know. Send it everywhere, to the media, to forums, etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Researching Statutes is
Not an Easy Task
BUT Nesessary
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Not an Easy Task
BUT Nesessary
Click HERE to learn "How To Win In Court" ... without a lawyer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also, a Great Document for Your Library--Now Available
"Standing in the Shadow of the Law", 4th Ed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also, a Great Document for Your Library--Now Available
"Standing in the Shadow of the Law", 4th Ed.
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
GranPa Chuck
Defend Yourself
http://nfpcar.org/Jurisdictionary/
http://nfpcar.org/Jurisdictionary/
are there websites that have the complete references for this? thanks in advance.
ReplyDeleteThis information was originally posted>> http://www.examiner.com/article/new-ca-legislation-parental-due-process-act
DeleteThis is actually all the information I have, and not sure if legislation was created. However, using this as a template for those that may want to pursue this issue.
All these new laws are interesting and seem to make sense... Activists seem to want to make new laws to stop "abuse of power," but without ever considering that in 1795, congress ratified the 11th amendment to make abuse of power legal by ending the culling of officials who believe they are above law. In the post dark ages, these officials claimed that because they were "SOVEREIGNS," God had ordained immunity for them. This of course is clearly explained in the civil code of procedure prior to the US revolution in Blackstones Commentaries http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-107.htm#fn53u Basically, this is where, even God fearing Christians in 1776 rejected the idea of a govt. run by dogma from "church and state."
ReplyDeletePrior to this event, we saw a similar revolution, but it was quashed by the inquisitions when Galileo translated Copernicus's "de revolutions" to Italian where common people were enlightened that Galileo and Copernicus were found to have a higher intelligence than the God of the Roman theocracy. Of course, it showed that dogma wasn't reality, it was men hijacking the God Story for profit. Not that I don't believe in God myself, but am clear that dogma is real and a non valid argument as shown by Galileo, who himself was imprisoned for life, in retaliation for "whistle blowing," exposing religious con artists.
Blackstone abandoned Latin text in law books, and wrote the first English version, which also revealed that "Sovereigns" were only self appointed by "a convocation of clergy" [group of pastors]. Of course their reward has always been tax exemption for teaching obedience, even to tyranny. In 1769, 7 years prior to the revolution, "dogma" from church and state was the smoking gun sole basis that had been allowing "sovereign immunity" for the kings court who were alleged in the declaration of Independence as "judicial tyrants performing mock trials" solely due to a "right inestimable to them and formidable for tyrants only." Of course the colonists where repulsed by this obviously.
Today it isn't so obvious. Though the history I have just mentioned exists in reality, expressing it to our schools has conveniently been denied to students. Thus they have no clue of what "sovereign" means, from its basis and root that has made corruption a constitutional right shared by government officials.
THE HEAD OF THE SNAKE
DeleteI've heard activist seem to have vast knowledge about the Constitution, and they claim that they are seeking justice. Yet I have not met one activist who understands that if corruption has been legalized, then the only solution is to remove the law that made it legal. Gandhi, actually, was the only activist that understood that "sovereign" is not really an adjective, it is a noun, a class of persons who, according to Sir William Blackstone, decreed themselves, ipse dixit, that they were "divine, pre-eminence, supreme beings" allowed to abuse by God! At this time, the aristocracy saw no wrong in this "inestimable right of tyrants" that the declaration declared war against. But the common folk realized, that this basis was not able to withstand logical debate, because the argument could not be proven to be true. Therefore, humans suffering without remedy by being arbitrarily abused by foolish sociopathic men cultivated by this law of corruption, had finally seen that this law would not stand, and in fact it was removed from history from 1776 until 1795 when it was reinstated, very cleverly.
Nevertheless, Immunity in 1999 by the Supreme Court, still claims its basis as "sovereign immunity." Webster.com shows "sovereignty" as "obsolete." Nonetheless, the Supreme Court in 1999 Alden v. Maine insisted against four of the justices nays, that they were "sovereigns" and that they are not bound by the "supreme law of the land" because they are more supreme apparently. 5 justices claimed that God has allowed them to violate the constitution without being held liable by their victims! http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2235&context=llr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dhypocrasy%2520of%2520aldne%2520v%2520maine%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CDYQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.lmu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D2235%2526context%253Dllr%26ei%3DzUx0Uf7jI6SYiQKZ9ICYBQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNGGGQKWI0leW9WoffElcmmSkS1YoA%26bvm%3Dbv.45512109%2Cd.cGE#search=%22hypocrasy%20aldne%20v%20maine%22
So when I see activists running about with new laws to stop abuse of power, but they ignore the 11th amendment that will override their new law, I am perplexed. Isn't repeating failure over and over expecting good results the definition of insanity? Sun Tzu in the "Art of War" stated, in chapter 3 v 5 and 7 that "swarming" without identifying and attacking the "master of the empire" is easily predicted defeat. Aristotle pointed to the major premise along with minor premises to reach a conclusion. CPS is a minor premise of abuse that gains its power from the 11th amendment, THEE major premise for CPS workers to abandon caution and abuse without fear of liability.
The 11th amendment is the fortification front lines where the battle can only be won. It has no support in reality or logical plausible premises, other than one theory. If leaned on it will tumble. The problem is, nobody is aware if this. In fact I found these 3 professors who are studying "73 countries" whose immunity laws show the most corrupt. http://phys.org/news/2013-04-corruption-soars-politicians-law.html They are not even aware that the 11th amendment is the sole constitutional right given to our corrupt government to continue corruption from every agency. But they do acknowledge that if it existed, which it does, it would create and encourage more corruption, even in the CPS.
I have more information at www.the11thamendment.com which is a pitch for help in producing a major documentary to reveal this, as did Galileo, and Blackstone. When society see's how repulsive immunity is, they will tear it down!
Actually, my concern is not as much as the abuse of power, but more one of those in power not using the very statutes they are bound to.. 99.9% of myself and affiliates research and guidance of others have been examples of proof that those in power violated these statutes.
DeleteAnother major concern in our family/juvenile and/or admin. hearings is the low level of proof based on Preponderance of evidence needed.
In addition recognizing due process of law has been glossed over. So in essence this Template merely clarifies many of these issues and/or adds additional procedures that might be considered. And, as expect, to date this proposal hasn't gotten very far.
And any additional thoughts on immunity is great, which too me invites irresponsible actions of those that are under the varying degrees of immunity.
I thank you for sharing the detail of information.. I'm not a lawyer, but as a tech editor/researcher I do enjoy reviewing additional information.. Fully knowing the more I read, the less I know.
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
GranPa Chuck.