Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Legal Deposition--YIPES?

Below is an excerpt of Deposition transcript of a CPS Attorney asking questions (Q.) to a CPS agency personnel relating to Warrants. When reading this excerpt, here are some thoughts to consider:
·         Does the conversation sound familiar?
·         Do you feel the agency personnel is familiar with the Warrant Process?
·         Can you think of other questions your attorney could ask?
·         Have you learned enough, to defend yourself as well as what to do when one comes knocking at your door?

Please take a moment and read this Q&A Deposition excerpt, and any comments you may have would be most appreciated. Will be putting this as a webpage as part of the information connected with this Home Page>> Index to Legal Assistance
·         Do encourage one to download this training file in pdf format. It is actually one of the litigation proceedings in a Civil Suit against the County Agency. It is a great outline to learn the Warrant Process. It seems, in my opinion many CPS agents don’t understand the importance of a warrant.. But, why shouldn’t we become knowledgeable of the importance??

Excerpt -- Deposition Transcript

Q. In investigating children in need of protective services, when typically in the process would you first be consulted?
A. I guess that – investigating, I’m not sure what you mean, but I’m saying in the normal CHIPS proceeding – It just depended. Like what’s today, Friday? It depended on the case. I would come in Monday morning and there’d be a note, we’ve got three detention hearings. Well, many of them I wasn’t consulted on, they picked the kids up. Other ones they would call and say we’ve got an ongoing situation here, we’re looking for some guidance, what do you think we got, bla, bla, bla. I would say as to those that there was some initial involvement, and it’s not initial because I’d be involved after they’d been involved for a while, so never right at the beginning, but as – before we removed the kids, I don’t know, 20, 25 percent I guess of them, something like that.

Q. The rest they would remove the kids on their own?
A. Right. Right. It would be like – like seven – coming over here I’d hear the social worker—I’m taking them – they’d go, we’re going out to pick up three kids after school today. Okay, why, bla, bla, bla, but that would be the first I’d hear. Other ones they’d come in Monday, Wednesday and say we took two into detention. And then, like I say, a few of them, lesser amount were kind of ongoing, this is what we heard this week, you know.

Q. Were there certain circumstances where you got a warrant or a court order before picking them up and certain ones where you just picked them up?
A. Yeah. Ah-huh.

Q. How would you distinguish between those two situations?
A. The difficulty – if I had to do it, it was the difficulty to be able to, in essence, obtain the kids, you know what I’m saying? If we could pick them up after school or go to the house and pick them up, or if they were in the care of someone else that would allow us to pick them up, we’d do that. We’d get a court order for – we had court orders rarely, but it would be like situations where the parents were denying medical care or something and we knew we couldn’t get in the house, or they were – you know, it was going to be a physical confrontation, or they were fleeing with someone, and we had time. A lot of times it was a matter of time. The other times, few occasions it was just a matter of situation, how – we need additional court order to kind of – not back people off, but allow us to access.

Q. So the two situations that you described, the first one you described is if you could pick them up without having to be in a confrontational situation –
A. Right. Usually, yeah.

Q. – You then wouldn’t get a court order in those kind of situations?
A. No. No, we’d say enough facts, child’s in danger, whatever, and pick them up., right. Correct.

Q. What other situation beside that would you get a court order?
A. Like I was saying, if there was some possible -- I’m saying like maybe – if we had time, and it was maybe a hospital situation or something, where the kid was there and we weren’t sure the authority either from the hospital staff – they might say we’re not giving to you or anybody else. And we’d say, well, we got – Competing parents or stuff like that, kind of may have been in a custody situation where it would cause a lot of problems. And we’d just say our order’s clear, you know, you listen to it, hospital staff and that too. Those would be situations. I didn’t have a lot of those, but we had a few. And maybe denied immediate access to like the home or something, where we – almost like – couldn’t get anybody to let us in or we or couldn’t get in, and we didn’t know immediately that like it was immediate danger, but there was enough danger to remove, we asked for a court order to take custody of the kid. And that would help, that was – that would help too, and we’d get law enforcement field more comfortable to forcibly take or enter. Kind of those situations.

Q. But if you could expeditiously pickup the child at school or someplace where you wouldn’t confront the parents then you typically wouldn’t get a court order?
A. Correct. If the parents were the problem, you know, other times it would be other people. But, right, it was very—very common that we would remove the kids from school, that’s often where we found out the situation, but very common that we’d say we’re picking them up at school, that was very common. Other ones, that caregiver or something, same thing, you know, say we’ve got this problem, check it out, right. We typically would not get a warrant to try and enter those situations because it was more of a voluntary.

Q. Because you didn’t anticipate any resistance from either the school or the caregiver –
A. Right.

Thanks for reviewing this information.
Any comments would be Super.
Remember- If you don't know your Rights,
You have NONE
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
GranPa Chuck
Researcher, Editor, Publisher

Saturday, March 8, 2014

If these are the thoughts our politicians, the end is very near…!

Really worth reading. So funny. BUT so Scarry

A DC 'airport ticket agent' offers some examples of 'WHY' our country is in trouble!*

  • 1.* I had a New Hampshire Congresswoman (Carol Shea-Porter) ask for an aisle seat so that her hair wouldn't get messed up by being near the window. (On an airplane!)
  • 2. * I got a call from a Kansas Congressman's (Moore) staffer (Howard Bauleke), who wanted to go to Cape Town. I started to explain the length of the flight and the passport information, and then he interrupted me with, ''I'm not trying to make you look stupid, but Cape Town is in Massachusetts ...'Without trying to make him look stupid, I calmly explained, ''Cape Cod is in Massachusetts, Cape Town is in South Africa .''His response -- click..
  • 3.* A senior Vermont Congressman (Bernie Sanders) called, furious about a Florida package we did. I asked what was wrong with the vacation in Orlando. He said he was expecting an ocean-view room. I tried to explain that's not possible, since Orlando is in the middle of the state. He replied, 'Don't lie to me!, I looked on the map, and Florida is a very THIN state!!'' (OMG)
  • 4.* I got a call from a lawmaker's wife (Landra Reid) who asked, ''Is it possible to see England from Canada ?'' I said, ''No.'' She said, ''But they look so close on the map'' (OMG, again!)
  • 5.* An aide for a cabinet member (Janet Napolitano) once called and asked if he could rent a car in Dallas I pulled up the reservation and noticed he had only a 1-hour layover in Dallas ... When I asked him why he wanted to rent a car, he said, ''I heard Dallas was a big airport, and we will need a car to drive between gates to save time.'' (Aghhhh)
  • 6.* An Illinois Congresswoman (Jan Schakowsky) called last week. She needed to know how it was possible that her flight from Detroit left at 8:30 a.m., and got to Chicago at 8:33 a.m. I explained that Michigan was an hour ahead of Illinois, but she couldn't understand the concept of time zones. Finally, I told her the plane went fast, and she bought that.
  • 7.* A New York lawmaker, (Jerrold Nadler) called and asked, ''Do airlines put your physical description on your bag so they know whose luggage belongs to whom?'' I said, 'No, why do you ask?' He replied, ''Well, when I checked in with the airline, they put a tag on my luggage that said (FAT), and I'm overweight. I think that's very rude!'' After putting him on hold for a minute, while I looked into it. (I was dying laughing). I came back and explained the city code for Fresno, Ca. is (FAT - Fresno Air Terminal), and the airline was just putting a destination tag on his luggage..
  • 8.* A Senator John Kerry aide (Lindsay Ross) called to inquire about a trip package to Hawaii. After going over all the cost info, she asked, ''Would it be cheaper to fly to California and then take the train to Hawaii ?''
  • 9.* I just got off the phone with a freshman Congressman, Bobby Bright from Ala who asked, ''How do I know which plane to get on?'' I asked him what exactly he meant, to which he replied, ''I was told my flight number is 823, but none of these planes have numbers on them.''
  • 10* Senator Dianne Feinstein called and said, ''I need to fly to Pepsi-Cola, Florida. Do I have to get on one of those little computer planes?'' I asked if she meant fly to Pensacola and fly on a commuter plane. She said, ''Yeah, whatever, smarty!''
  • 11* Mary Landrieu, La. Senator, called and had a question about the documents she needed in order to fly to China. After a lengthy discussion about passports, I reminded her that she needed a visa. "Oh, no I don't. I've been to China many times and never had to have one of those.'' I double checked and sure enough, her stay required a visa. When I told her this she said, ''Look, I've been to China four times and every time they have accepted my American Express!''
  • 12* A New Jersey Congressman (John Adler) called to make reservations, ''I want to go from Chicago to Rhino, New York.'' I was at a loss for words. Finally, I said, ''Are you sure that's the name of the town?'' 'Yes, what flights do you have?'' replied the man. After some searching, I came back with, ''I'm sorry, sir, I've looked up every airport code in the country and can't find a rhino anywhere." ''The man retorted, ''Oh, don't be silly! Everyone knows where it is. Check your map!'' So I scoured a map of the state it finally offered, ''You don't mean Buffalo, do you?'' The reply? ''Whatever…! I knew it was a big animal.''
Now you know why the Government is in the shape it's in…!
Could ANYONE be this DUMB…?
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,

GranPa Chuck
Researcher, Editor, Publisher

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Tune In to Judical Watch Tonight..Or if one Ignores something will it go away?

Judicial Watch - Because no one is above the law!
Dear Friend,

If you ignore something long enough will it just go away? That is exactly what Judicial Watch believes the government is trying to do when our requests for information surrounding sensitive subject matter are repeatedly ignored.  Find out more about what we are doing to expose
government corruption in Washington and how we are demanding transparency under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) when the prevailing attitude is that the rules don't apply to powerful political figures. Tonight @ 8:00 PM ET, on For the Record.

TheBlaze.com/TV to watch - remember to enter Promo Code "FTR 2014" to watch for free!

We hope you can tune in!


Your Friends at Judicial Watch

May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,GranPa Chuck
Researcher, Editor, Publisher

Monday, March 3, 2014

Encourage Congress to Vote AGAINST S. 1876, The Strengthening And Finding Families for Children Act

  • S. 1876 would reauthorize and restructure adoption incentive payments. 
Here is a real chance to make change. 


  • If your Senator is on the sponsor list, ask him why he is sponsoring and did read the bill. Pick something and discuss that point with him.
  • Do not discuss your case in the first person. No major details. Its best to point to news articles and government stats.
  • The minute you use words like kidnap or profit, they will shut you off. Use their words, but get the idea across that they dont follow the law.
(read more ↓) OR go directly to site>> http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/113_SN_1876.html

Learn More

May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
GranPa Chuck
Researcher, Editor, Publisher

Sunday, March 2, 2014

Featured Lawyer, Greg Hession, and his Website

Periodically, and if appropriate, like to suggest a lawyer, who has been sharing information in the subject of Family Court and their efforts to defend many in their time of need.
Gregory Hession: Lawyer & web site publisher of "Mass Outrage
 "Asserting the rights of families & children"

He has been an attorney in Massachusetts since 1993, specializing in family, juvenile, and constitutional law.Fighting tyranny is emotionally painful for the client and the attorney, and not always successful. Attorney Hession's approach is personal, since he has a great affinity for the struggles of his clients against arbitrary government power.
  • (Please note:  And, unfortunately, as of Sep. 26, 2013, Gregory has be suspended for 1 year and 1 day. Perhaps, as a lawyer and the current statutes, his actions were not the best choice. However, in regards to helping another in their time of need, I would, more than likely done the same.
    Do not let this incident discourage you from visiting the website, for there is a lot of Truth in what is shared.
    Also, you can download the Suspension Order here >>
    http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/bd13-065.pdf )
Also a great Video- "The Iron Triangle of Family Law", Posted on YouTube Jul 20, 2012 to the JBS Council Dinner in Albany, NY on October 8, 2011. Mr Hession describes the assault of family law upon our society. So check it out Check it Out
  • For about the first 10 minutes, Gregory describes how are use of laws was the chosen method to govern ourselves.. However, by creating numerous laws, many times there is conflict between these laws.
But, in regards to creating an agency to protect our abused system, 
how many realize that Anonymous Reporting is based on reasonable suspicion??
(Check out this at about 15:30 into the video)
  • Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' "; it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", (Read more>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion )
Hate to say this, but the Lower the standard of proof, the more difficult it is for one to win their case.

Also, Marilyn and I had a great discussion, via Freedom Talk Radio, with Gregory Hession on Aug. 20, 2013. Had the opportunity to discuss some of his thoughts on his experiences. Great 2 hour discussion, and many points to consider when defending yourself and your family. 
Related Reading:
  • Questions You Want to Ask Your Lawyer
  • Helping Your Lawyer
  • Standards of Practice for Attorneys Representing Parents in Abuse and Neglect Cases - ABA- 2006 (Download pdf) This document out lines the many responsibilities of what lawyers are susposed to do when working with their client. May want to download and review this to document what your lawyer actually does, in your particular experiences. Sections include:
        1) Summary of the Standards;
        2) Basic Obligations of Parents' Attorneys;
        3) Obligations of Attorney Manager; and
        4) Role of the Court
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
GranPa Chuck
Researcher, Editor, Publisher