Unbiased Reporting

What I post on this Blog does not mean I agree with the articles or disagree. I call it Unbiased Reporting!

Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly

Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital

Saturday, June 30, 2012

Oppression on the Yellow Brick Road - American Children Legally Tortured in Canton, Mass

DMVC Productions = Results: Oppression on the Yellow Brick Road - American Children Legally Tortured in Canton, Mass:

Follow the Money!

FOX Undercover on Judge Rotenberg Center

"A reporter's ability to keep the bond of confidentiality often enables him to learn the hidden or secret aspects of government." Bob Woodward

Canton, Massachusetts

An affluent and seemingly visually beautiful area of Massachusetts conceals the Horror and Oppression occurring right now at the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center. http://www.educationnews.org/ednews_today/59610.html Even after this Federal Investigation this place is still open; why? - Law makers said it should be, why? follow the money...

Read More:

For the greater good and aid in ending this Oppression no matter where your from please sign this petition to end the violence in Massachusett's 
http://www.change.org/petitions/judge-rotenberg-educational-center-please-stop-painful-electric-shocks-on-your-students and or here

Which State Child Welfare Systems Are Right for Kids?

Right for Kids Ranking-Which State Child Welfare Systems Are Right for Kids? 

Definitely NOT New Hampshire!

Note: For more specific statistics on NH's Failed Assessment, click on http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/dcyf/documents/childfamilyservicesreport112010.pdf, also on the right side of my blog.

F O U N D A T I O N  F O R

Each state’s child welfare system typically operates out of the public eye unless a tragedy, often the death a
child, pulls the system from the shadows to the front page. It should not be this way. Protecting children from
abuse and neglect is a fundamental responsibility of a civil society.
Yet, the average American, and even most policymakers and members of the media, has little understanding of how
their state’s child welfare system performs. The annual RIGHT FOR KIDS RANKING provides the hard facts about how
well states are serving vulnerable kids. The RIGHT FOR KIDS RANKING and the companion RightForKids.org Web site
answers basic questions like:
• Which states are doing the best job overall in serving children who are abused and neglected?
And more focused questions like:
• Which states are best serving teenagers in foster care by helping them move on to permanency and stability?
The 2012 RIGHT FOR KIDS RANKING shows which states are best and worst at this tough but critical job, using a
methodology that scores all states in 11 key outcome areas and 41 different data measures. This comprehensive
list is the first of its kind.
The five major findings from this year’s RIGHT FOR KIDS RANKING are:
1. Only 11 states have a 24-hour rapid response to investigate claims of abuse or neglect.
2. Only 12 states visit the vast majority of foster kids monthly.
3. Only 9 states quickly and safely return foster children home to their biological families when possible.
4. Only 9 states ensure short and stable stays in foster care as general practice.
5. Only 11 states help find forever families ASAP for a large share of foster children.
Americans, most importantly abused and neglected kids, pay a significant price as a result of some states doing
a much worse job than others. What if all states performed at the level of the Top 10 Right for Kids States? If that
1. There would be 72,000 fewer kids in foster care (17% fewer).
2. There would be almost 19,000 more adoptions from foster care each year (36% more).
Helping kids is not just good social policy. It is good economic policy as well. Child abuse and neglect costs
more than $100 billion every year in direct ($33 billion) and indirect ($71 billion) costs.
This annual ranking is a reality check on how well each state is serving the most vulnerable children, and
celebrates top performing states overall and in specific outcome areas. These bright spots can lead by example,
and highlight successful public policies, funding structures, and leadership to best serve kids. Understanding why
a state ranks where it does is the first step toward positive, pro-active reforms. Learn more about how your state
performs by reading this report and state specific profiles at RightForKids.org

Click on the above link to see how each state ranks.

Top UK Doctor Admits “Death Panels” Kill 130,000 Elderly Patients a Year

Top UK Doctor Admits “Death Panels” Kill 130,000 Elderly Patients a Year | Red County:

Opponents of government-run healthcare services were ridiculed by the Left and the mainstream media when they argued that Obamacare and single-payer healthcare systems would create “death panels” that would determine whether or not patients would receive life-saving care.

Professor Patrick Pullicino, a consultant neurologist and Professor of Clinical Neurosciences at the University of Kent, told the Royal Society of Medicine in London Monday that the country’s National Health Service kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year.

Read More:

New Hampshire Money Laundering or simply Fraud

DMVC Productions = Results: New Hampshire Money Laundering or simply Fraud:

Follow the money? It is some what of a challenge and difficult in NH, the path below is full of various layers it's your call... like Ms. Edmonds once said "believe me; they will do everything to cover this up." 

It starts here: 
Under NH RSA 169-C:39-i

[RSA 169-C:39-i repealed by 2010, 195:3, effective on the date that the New Hampshire Children's Trust certifies to the secretary of state, the state treasurer, and the director of the office of legislative services that the trust has been formed as a private New Hampshire voluntary corporation and has been qualified by the Internal Revenue Service as a section 501(c)(3) entity.] (means non-profit)
169-C:39-i Successor to or Replacement of New Hampshire Charitable Foundation. – 
References in this subdivision to the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation shall include any successor to such foundation. The New Hampshire Charitable Foundation may resign from the obligations imposed on it under this subdivision by paying over all funds held by it under this subdivision to the state treasurer, together with an accounting. Upon such payment, the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation shall be relieved of all further obligations with respect to the trust fund. 

Source. 1987, 372:6. 1992, 24:1. 1997, 254:8, eff. Aug. 18, 1997.
Please click on the above link for more interesting and truthful facts 

Friday, June 29, 2012

Foster parents want case dismissed

Foster parents want case dismissed - Coeur d'Alene Press: Local News:

Post Falls couple facing charges after death of child

COEUR d'ALENE - Attorneys for the Post Falls foster parents indicted in Kootenai County for allegedly injuring two children in their care, including one who died, will argue next month the case should be dismissed.

Read More:

Lancashire care system scandal exposed

Lancashire care system scandal exposed - Local - Blackpool Gazette:

A TOP judge has exposed a shocking scandal in the care system which saw two baby boys stripped of their family ties and shunted around a catalogue of foster parents, suffering permanent psychological damage in the process.

Read More:

Statistics suggest bleak futures for children who grow up in foster care

Statistics suggest bleak futures for children who grow up in foster care | Amarillo Globe-News:

Statistics show the future bodes poorly for many of the children in the foster care system, a top official with Arrow Child and Family Ministries said. Arrow, an international child-placement agency, claims the statistics describe a “national foster care crisis.”
As of April, there were 349 children from Randall and Potter counties in foster care.

According to national statistics provided by Arrow, 40 to 50 percent of those children will never complete high school. Sixty-six percent of them will be homeless, go to jail or die within one year of leaving the foster care system at 18.
Arrow also said 80 percent of the prison population once was in foster care, and that girls in foster care are 600 percent more likely than the general population to become pregnant before the age of 21.

Read More:

Foster Care Abuse Claims

Foster Care Abuse Claims:

The report finds too many abused children are being abused again in state custody. Even DCF says it can do better.
The state audit shows nine out of every 100 abused kids get abused again when they're put in foster care. The report says the numbers of so-called "re-abuse cases" exceed the state's own goal of no more than seven percent, and are well above the national standard of six percent.
Read More:

Four charged with running foster child prostitution ring

Four charged with running foster child prostitution ring - Miami-Dade - MiamiHerald.com:

Police have busted a ring that allegedly recruited underage girls in the care of the state to work as prostitutes.

Police and prosecutors arrested four alleged pimps Monday morning as part of an ongoing investigation into a ring of human traffickers who preyed on abused and neglected children in foster care.

Read More:

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/25/2867962/4-charged-with-running-foster.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/25/2867962/4-charged-with-running-foster.html#storylink=cpy

Child Support, Child Custody & Manhattan Family Courts Equals Criminals, Extortion etc..

Govt's Secret Family Courts - Bill Maloney

Arrogance of the Family Court

Eagle Forum Blog: Arrogance of the Family Court:

In previous broadcasts, I've told you about many outrageous decisions of the family courts. The people who want to get the government out of our private lives should turn their attention to the arrogance of family court judges, because that's where the most intrusive interferences with our private lives is taking place. In family courts, divorced parents have no parental rights over their own children; the judges think they can make all decisions. Parents who divorce may think they are just divorcing from each other, but in fact they are divorcing from their own children, and judges believe they can decide everything about the children. Their decisions are based on their own biases, but they wrap their decisions in a mantra called "the best interest of the child." The phrase "the best interest of thechild" originally meant that parents decided what is the child's best interest. But now judges instead of parents are making those decisions.

Read More:

Rights of the Child News: Child Victims of Torture

Rights of the Child News: Child Victims of Torture:

27/06/2012 – Despite the presence of humanitarian and human rights law protecting all people from torture, children continue to suffer the injustice of torture.

Read More:

Delaware legislature considers blue ribbon task force on opening Family Court proceedings to public

Delaware legislature considers blue ribbon task force on opening Family Court proceedings to public » Gavel to Gavel:

The question of whether family law/domestic relations cases, especially where juveniles are involved, should be open to the public has been at issue in numerous states. The process and openness of Delaware’s system was previously reviewed by  a task force created by the state legislature 15 years ago (HJR 4 of 1997) and now Delaware’s legislature appears prepared to readdress the subject in much the same manner.

Read More:

Divorcing a Narcissist: It Takes a Village (Part 1)

» family court system is failing One Mom's Battle:

I am angry.  I am angry that it takes a tragedy to bring awareness and change.  We (myself included) watch the news and gasp at stories like the Susan and Josh Powell case.  These stories cause an emotional rise for us and we are equally shocked and saddened.  These stories prove to be conversation pieces at work, coffee shops and the gym but then we go on with our lives.  Charles (age 7) and Braden (age 5) Powell can’t go on with their lives—the details of their case are horrific and if this story makes you feel uncomfortable then I have accomplished my goal.  As a society, we should feel so incredibly uncomfortable that we begin to take action.

Read More:

Putnam judge has outburst in court 

Putnam judge has outburst in court  - News - Charleston Daily Mail - West Virginia News and Sports -:

CHARLESTON, W.VA. - An online video records a Putnam family law judge screaming at a preacher involved in a divorce case in his courtroom.
The 16-minute video, uploaded to YouTube on Tuesday, is an official court recording of a divorce hearing for Arthur and Lillian Hage before Family Law Judge William "Chip" Watkins. The hearing occurred about 10 a.m. May 23, according to the video's timestamp.

Torn apart, immigrant family blames Iowa lawyer

Torn apart, immigrant family blames Iowa lawyer - SFGate:

IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) — A lawyer who gave bad advice that caused illegal immigrants from Ecuador to be separated from their children and grandchildren in Iowa for at least a decade can be sued for the family's pain and suffering, a court ruled Wednesday.
Read More:

NH Governor Reappoints Master Luneau to the GAL Board after the Redress Committee Votes Founded for her allowing perjury of a GAL / Attorney in a divorce custody case.

The Supreme Court or NH Governor just re appointed a Martial Master to be a member of the GAL Board that the Redress Grievance Committee made a FOUNDED ruling that this Martial Master allowed a GAL to commit perjury during a NH case.
You are aware by now that the House Redress of Grievance petition #14 has FOUNDED Martial Master Henrietta Luneau for allowing perjury of GAL / Attorney Aaby.  As I understand the circumstances, per the petition and petition ruling, GAL / Attorney Aaby was the live in girlfriend of a divorcing party litigant and provided a favorable recommendation relative to custody.  A motion identifying a conflict of interest was submitted by Petitioner 14 and denied by Master Luneau.  A complaint by Petitioner 14 was made to the JCC and dismissed.  The RGC also founded that the JCC error by dismissing this complaint.
Master H. Luneau is a member of the NH GAL Board appointed by the Supreme Court.  Her term expired 6/12 per the GAL Board web site as of June 18, 2012.  I have learned from the GAL Board secretary that the Supreme Court has re appointed Master Henrietta Luneau and her term expiration date is now 6/17.  The GAL Board will not challenge the appointment of any member by the Governor or Supreme Court; the Board is apparently not authorized to challenge an appointment.
Late breaking information today has indicated that the Governor actually reappointed Master Luneau to the GAL Board for another 5 years after the redress committe Founded her for allowing perjury of a GAL / Attorney in a divorce custody case.
See about 1/4 of the way down

PETITION #14 grievance of Jeanette Dionne.
Grievance Founded With Recommendations.
Committee Majority Findings:
Having reviewed the testimony and documents, and having received no response from any of the involved officials or their representatives, despite invitations to so provide, the Committee concludes:  a) that the Brentwood Family Division wrongfully considered and granted an ex parte motion premised purely on hearsay of the father concerning, not anything the Petitioner mother had done, but what she might do, a standard which if applied uniformly would justify jailing every citizen of the State of New Hampshire; b) that the Marital Master held a hearing without providing the statutory 10 day notice, and that the Court Clerk failed to provide statutory notice to the Petitioner of a hearing in which she was a material party; c) that the Guardian ad Litem did not promptly disclose and disqualify herself by reason of a conflict of interest based upon her prior representation of the live-in girlfriend of the father of Petitioner’s children, whose input could be expected to be and in fact was material to the parenting plan eventually adopted; d) that the Marital Master and supervising Judge failed in their responsibility to protect the public from conflicted attorneys by not removing the conflicted Guardian ad Litem from the case as soon as her conflict was finally disclosed; e) that the Marital Master and supervising Judge failed to hold the Guardian ad Litem accountable for evident perjury when she represented that she had been unaware of the conflict of interest; and f) that the Judicial Conduct Committee failed to sanction the Marital Master or supervising Judge for their failure to address the Guardian ad Litem’s conflict of interest issue with the order of disqualification it obviously required.
The troubling issues raised in this Petition should be included with others by which evidence is accumulating to show serious deficiencies in the administration, investigation and adjudication of Family Division cases.  Vote 9-2.
Rep. Greg Sorg for the Majority of the Committee

State House rally calls for children’s services reform

State House rally calls for children’s services reform - Milford, MA - The Milford Daily News:

Dozens of proponents of a bill aimed at reforming the state’s system for handling troubled kids gathered at the State House yesterday to make a final push for action before the current legislative session ends.

Read more:

Woman convicted of bribing North Texas judge

Woman convicted of bribing North Texas judge - SFGate:

McKINNEY, Texas (AP) — A Dallas-area woman has been convicted of eight felony counts for secretly financing a judge's campaign in return for favorable treatment in a child custody case.

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Shut Down of Foster Care Program Leaves Gap in Maine Services

Shut Down of Foster Care Program Leaves Gap in Maine Services:

A major provider of foster care and adoption services in Maine will be closing its doors. Casey Family Services provides theraputic care to 93 foster kids and other supports for hundreds of adoptive familes. The organization's parent, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, says it can ultimately serve more children of it moves away from a direct care model and instead contracts with other agencies in the seven states where Casey Family Services operates. But supporters of the organization in Maine say no other agencies in the state are equipped to provide the post-adoption supports to families that Casey offers.

Read More:

Challenged kids get more Psychotropic Drugs New Hampshire

Challenged kids get more prescriptions - NashuaTelegraph.com:

Around 120 kids filter through Nashua Children’s Home in a typical year.
David Villiotti, the home’s executive director, estimates that anywhere from two-thirds to three-
quarters of those kids are prescribed at least one psychotropic drug.
But what drugs are being taken, how much and which children are taking them is shrouded from regulatory oversight even though the kids are wards of the state.
My comment:
Maggie Bishop should know what kids are on psychotropic drugs seeing as DCYF is responsible for medicating so many of them. Just a way for DCYF to get more federal funding by drugging the children placed in their care, after being taken away from their innocent families that they long to be with. Questions for Maggie Bishop: Have the prescribed psychotropic drug's stopped the kids from longing for their families? Have the kids temper tantrums stopped and are they now easier to manipulate? To brainwash? Is drugging the children in foster care the only way you can them adopted out, because it means more money for DCYF and the adopters keep getting paid by the state until the kids are 18 or 21? How's it feel raising robot's? What a racket!

Read More:

Stolen by Nashua, NH DCYF

My ILLEGALLY Stolen Grandchildren

Stolen by Nashua, nh Dcyf Slideshow: Dorothy’s trip from Manchester, New Hampshire, United States to 6 cities Nashua, Salem, Merrimack, Rochester, Hudson and Hollis was created by TripAdvisor. See another United States slideshow. Create your own stunning slideshow with our free photo slideshow maker.

Speak Up - Guest Denise-Marie McIntosh

New Hampshire DCYF Scores An F!!!!!

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome: Newborns Addicted To Prescription Drugs

Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome: Newborns Addicted To Prescription Drugs - Medical Daily:

Note: Newborn's withdraw from Methadone also, prescribed to their Mother's in pregnancy.

There is a new group of addicts and this group will tear your heart out because they are helpless and innocent. They had no choice and they have no say in their final destiny. This group is newborn babies.

Read More:

Casey Family services group to close, lay off 280 One Down!

Family services group to close, lay off 280 | Local News - WMUR Home:

One down, now to shut down the rest!!!!!!!

A nonprofit organization in Concord that provides foster care and adoption services to families in New Hampshire will be closing its doors.

Read more:

Monday, June 25, 2012

FIRST PRINCIPLES: Constitutional Matters: Right to Present a Defense

FIRST PRINCIPLES: Constitutional Matters: Right to Present a Defense:

2010 (September Term)

United States v. Jones, 69 M.J. 294 (a military judge’s denial of an accused’s request to review the government’s evidence of child pornography against him prior to and during his providence inquiry did not violate the accused’s Sixth Amendment to make a defense because the accused did not seek to review the evidence to prepare a defense; the accused retained at all times the right to withdraw from the pretrial agreement, plead not guilty, and require the government to prove the offenses against him; the accused sought to review the evidence of child pornography to assist him in pleading guilty, and not to assist him in his defense).


United States v. McAllister
, 64 M.J. 248 (just as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution’s witnesses for the purpose of challenging their testimony, he has the right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense; this right is a fundamental element of due process of law). 

 (in light of the evidence derived from DNA re-testing and revealed at the DuBay factfinding hearing on remand, the military judge’s error in denying the accused’s request for expert DNA assistance and refusing to permit a re-test of certain evidence for the presence of DNA deprived the accused of his due process right to present evidence establishing a defense based on the discovery of DNA from three unidentified individuals on the victim’s fingernails).   

United States v. Kreutzer
, 61 M.J. 293 (compulsory process, equal access to evidence and witnesses, and the right to necessary expert assistance in presenting a defense are guaranteed to military accuseds through the Sixth Amendment, Article 46, UCMJ, 10 USC § 846, and RCM 703(d)).

(where a request for the expert assistance of a mitigation specialist is erroneously denied, that ruling implicates the right to present a defense, compulsory process, and due process conferred by the Constitution, the right to obtain witnesses and evidence conferred by Article 46, UCMJ, and the right to the assistance of necessary experts conferred by RCM 703(d)). 

United States v. Teffeau, 58 MJ 62 (fundamental due process demands that an accused be afforded the opportunity to defend against a charge before a conviction on the basis of that charge can be sustained; few constitutional principles are more firmly established than a defendant’s right to be heard on the specific charges of which he is accused).
United States v. Jeffers, 57 MJ 13 (order to have no social contact with a named person did not inhibit appellant’s ability to prepare his defense; nothing in the order could have been interpreted as restricting appellant’s access to that person, a potential witness against him, so long as the meeting with that individual was official business, and there were no facts developed at trial, either through motions, objections or testimony, that showed the order interfered with an attorney-client relationship, or impaired defense counsel’s trial preparation).
United States v. Dimberio, 56 MJ 224 (a defendant has a constitutional right to present a defense, including compulsory due process to compel the attendance of defense witnesses and the right to introduce their testimony into evidence).
(the Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause, and the Manual for Courts-Martial each provide that the servicemember- accused is entitled to expert assistance when necessary for an adequate defense).
(the Constitution does not confer upon an accused the right to present any and all types of evidence at trial, but only that evidence which is legally and logically relevant).
(although expert opinion evidence of a psychiatric diagnosis or personality disorder does not fit within the exceptions noted in Mil.R.Evid. 404(a), the accused nonetheless has a constitutional right to introduce the evidence if it is otherwise legally and logically relevant under Mil.R.Evid. 401-403).
(rules such as Mil.R.Evid. 403 and 404(a) that exclude evidence from criminal trials do not abridge an accused’s constitutional right to present a defense so long as they are not arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve and do not infringe upon a weighty constitutional interest of the accused).
United States v. Browning, 54 MJ 1 (the constitutional right to present evidence to defend against charges is not absolute).
United States v. Lewis, 51 MJ 376 (appellant was prejudicially chilled in the presentation of his defense case where military judge erroneously held view that RCM 701(b)(2) required presentation of corroborating witnesses in order to establish innocent ingestion defense and thereby:  (1) prevented appellant from introducing evidence which could have rebutted the government’s circumstantial case on the issue of knowledge; (2) would not permit defense counsel to introduce any evidence that some person may have had a motive to contaminate appellant’s drink on certain nights; (3) prevented persuasive argument on this specific defense theory; and (4) failed to instruct the members that the government had the burden with respect to the circumstantial defense evidence of innocent ingestion actually admitted, as well that which was erroneously excluded).
United States v. Jones, 52 MJ 60 (the Fifth Amendment, Article 31(a) and (d), UCMJ, the warning requirements, and the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation have the combined effect of requiring that a criminal defendant be afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense).

The Right to Present Defense Evidence

The Right to Present Defense Evidence - The Advocate: September 2000:

There is nothing that astonishes man so much as common sense and plain dealing.
— Ralph Waldo Emerson
The right to present a defense is as American as apple pie. Defendants are constitutionally entitled to:
  • be heard,
  • effectively present evidence central to their defense,
  • call-witnesses to testify on their behalf,
  • rebut evidence presented by the prosecution.
  • Note: Why are NH Family Court Litigant's denied these rights?
Many of the Kentucky Rules of Evidence are the result of these rights. Much of Kentucky caselaw implements these rights. Fundamentally, Sections 2 and 11 of the Kentucky Constitution and the 6th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution guarantee these rights.Some think that they cannot present or exclude evidence if the KREs do not allow. But that is not the case. The client's constitutional right to present a defense is more fundamental than the KREs and allows the introduction of evidence even if not allowed by the KREs or requires the exclusion of evidence even if not required by the KREs. The reliability of the jurors’ verdict on guilt or innocence and on the degree of guilt and on the extent of punishment requires that a defendant be permitted to fully be heard, to fully present his defense, to rebut prosecution evidence, to call witnesses.
The right to present a defense is constitutionally guaranteed. The sacred right to present a defense is ingrained in our system of justice. After a long history of development, the common law in England "recognized that the accused has a right to present a defense at trial." Imwinkelried, Exculpatory Evidence (1996) at 1.
The United States Supreme Court has found the right to effectively present a defense to be constitutionally required. Evidentiary rules cannot prevent a defendant from presenting his defense. Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1972). In Chambers, Leon Chambers was charged with shooting a policeman in a crowded bar and alley while the policeman was there to arrest another man. Chambers’ defense was that he was innocent. He had two grounds to show his innocence: he did not shoot the policeman, Gable McDonald shot the officer. McDonald confessed that he killed the officer but repudiated the confession. Chambers called McDonald to testify at trial but was prevented from cross-examining him as an adverse witness because of Mississippi’s common law rule prohibiting impeachment of your own witness. Chambers sought to introduce testimony from 3 witnesses to the effect that McDonald admitted he killed the officer to them or made incriminating statements to them. The trial judge refused to allow those witnesses’ testimony, as the testimonies were hearsay. "As a consequence of the combination of Mississippi’s ‘party witness’ or ‘voucher’ rule and its hearsay rule, [Chambers] was unable either to cross-examine McDonald or to present witnesses in his own behalf who would have discredited McDonald’s repudiation and demonstrated complicity." Id. at 294.
The Court held that the exclusion of the defense evidence because it was hearsay and because it violated the voucher rule was an unconstitutional denial of the right to show another person did the crime, which was the defendant's defense. The Court noted that the hearsay statements were made under circumstances that "provided considerable assurance of their reliability." Id. at 300. This included spontaneity of the statements, corroboration of the statements, the number of independent confessions, the statements were against the interest of McDonald. The Court said," The right of an accused in a criminal trial to due process is, in essence, the right to a fair opportunity to defend against the State's accusations. The rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses and to call witnesses in one's own behalf have long been recognized as essential to due process." Id. at 294.
Chambers teaches that state evidence rules or common law caselaw that prevent admission of evidence must fall if a defendant is prevented by them of presenting his defense. Just as significant, Chambers teaches that prevailing requires thorough litigating. Reading the opinion of the United States Supreme Court reveals that the defense attorney litigated this issue prior to trail via motion practice, in court and from multiple perspectives. It is a lesson in the ingredients of persuasion.
Kentucky has recognized that an indigent defendant is entitled, when a proper showing is made, to funds for a mental health expert to "conduct an appropriate examination and assist in the evaluation, preparation and presentation of the defense." Binion v. Commonwealth, Ky., 891 S.W.2d 383, 386 (1995). The court recognized "that in an adversarial system of criminal justice, due to process requires a level playing field at trial…there is a need for more than just an examination by a neutral psychiatrist. It also means that there must be an appointment of a psychiatrist to provide assistance to the accused to help evaluate the strength of his defense, to offer his own expert diagnosis at trial, and to identify weaknesses in the prosecution’s case by testifying and/or preparing counsel to cross-examine opposing experts."
Defendants have a constitutional right to rebut prosecution evidence. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that 14th Amendment due process provides defendants the right to rebut the prosecution’s evidence.
In Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 83 (1985) the Court held that a defendant charged with capital murder was entitled to funds to hire a psychiatrist to effectively present evidence of his defense of insanity. But the Court also looked at the penalty phase and held that Ake was also entitled to have the assistance of a psychiatrist on the issue of the aggravating factor of future dangerousness, which was a significant factor in the penalty phase. In effect, the Court held that the defendant was entitled under the due process clause to the ability to mitigate or rebut the state’s evidence in aggravation. "Ake also was denied the means of presenting evidence to rebut the State’s evidence of his future dangerousness." Id. at 83. The principle which underlies this ruling is significant. "This Court has long recognized that when a State brings its judicial power to bear on an indigent defendant in a criminal proceeding, it must take steps to assure that the defendant has a fair opportunity to present his defense. This elementary principle, grounded in significant part on the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process guarantee of fundamental fairness…." Id. at 76.
In Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (1977) the defendant was convicted of murder. In imposing the death penalty, the trial judge said he relied on parts of the presentence investigation report, which were confidential and not disclosed to defense counsel. The Court noted that the sentencing process must satisfy due process requirements capital case, and held that Daniel Gardner was "denied due process of law when the death sentence was imposed, at least in part, on the basis of information which he had no opportunity to deny or explain." Id. at 362. We learn from Gardner that fundamental due process requires a defendant the opportunity to deny or explain evidence used against him.
The rule of law of Gardner has been applied by the Supreme Court in other situations. In Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (1986) the defendant was convicted of murder and rape and sentenced to death. In the penalty phase Ronald Skipper presented testimony through himself and his former wife that he had behaved well during his over 7 months in jail awaiting trial and tried unsuccessfully to present the testimony of two jailers and a regular visitor that he had adjusted well in jail during the time between arrest and trial. The trial judge ruled that such evidence was irrelevant. During closing argument the prosecutor said that Mr. Skipper, if sentenced to prison, would likely rape other prisoners and be a disciplinary problem in prison. The Court held that evidence of good behavior was admissible as mitigation under Lockett and Eddings but also determined that the defendant was entitled to rebut, deny, explain prosecution evidence of future dangerousness. "Where the prosecution specifically relies on a prediction of future dangerousness in asking for the death penalty, it is not only the rule of Lockett and Eddings that requires that the defendant be afforded an opportunity to introduce evidence on this point; it is also the elemental due process requirement that a defendant not be sentenced to death ‘on the basis of information which he had no opportunity to deny or explain.’ Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 362 (1977)." Id. at 5 n.1.
In Kentucky, the right to rebut is often termed the right to respond when the opponent has opened the door. The right to respond includes the right to respond to evidence that should not have been originally admitted. InCommonwealth v. Alexander, Ky., 5 S.W.3d 104 (1999) a Sheriff’s Deputy was convicted of reckless homicide when his cruiser which was travelling at over 95 miles per hour collided with the victim’s car, as the Deputy was responding to an emergency call. At trial Sergeant Simms testified for the prosecution about his investigation of the scene. On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Simms questions to show the investigation report indicated that the victim, not the Deputy was at fault in the collision. On redirect, the prosecutor asked Simms if he still believed the victim was at fault. The defense unsuccessfully objected and Simms testified that upon further investigation, he believed the Deputy was at fault because of his excessive speed within a city. The issue on appeal was whether Simms could offer his opinion on an ultimate issue for the jury.
The Kentucky Supreme Court recognized the manifest fairness of allowing a party to respond to what the other party has chosen to open up. "We agree with the Commonwealth that the defense did, in fact, 'open the door' by asking Sergeant Simms his opinion about who was at fault for the collision. In Dunaway v. Commonwealth, Ky. 239 Ky. 166, 39 S.W.2d 242, 243 (1931), our predecessor Court held: 'It is an established and recognized rule of practice that a party to litigation, who first introduces into the trial of the case either irrelevant or incompetent evidence cannot complain of the subsequent admission by the court of like evidence from the adverse party, relating to the same matter.'" Id. at 105-106.
The Court also determined that there was no requirement that the prosecution had to object when the door was opened in order for a trial judge to be able to allow responsive evidence. "The Commonwealth’s limited redirect examination regarding the cause of the collision became relevant and admissible pursuant to KRE 401 and 402 once defense counsel opened the door to this line of inquiry." Id. at 106.
The lesson of Alexander is that commonsense ideas of fair play in the hands of a skilled litigator insure that the factfinders will hear both sides of the story and not a skewed set of facts.
Defendants are constitutionally entitled to present exculpatory evidence. In Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986) the16-year-old defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress the confession was denied At trial, Major Crane tried to show his confession was not worthy of belief in light of the affects of the psychological and physical conditions (windowless room, protracted length of questioning, involvement of 6 officers, refusal to allow him to call his mother) in the taking of his confession by the police. The trial judge said such evidence was inadmissible since it only related to the voluntariness of the confession, which he had previously ruled on. The defendant was convicted of murder and sentenced to 40 years.
On appeal, the Kentucky Supreme Court held that "once a hearing is conducted pursuant to RCr 9.78 and a finding is made by the judge based on substantial evidence that the confession was voluntary, that finding is conclusive and the trail court may exclude evidence relating to voluntariness from the consideration by the jury when the evidence has little or no relationship to any other issue. This shall not preclude the defendant from introduction of any competent evidence relating to authenticity, reliability or credibility of the confession." Crane v. Commonwealth, Ky., 690 S.W.2d 753, 755 (1985).
The United States Supreme Court held that it was error to prevent jurors from hearing exculpatory testimony about the environment in which the defendant’s confession was taken by the police since the manner in which it was taken was relevant to the reliability and credibility of the confession. The Court stated that whether found in the 14th amendment due process clause or the 6th amendment’s confrontation and compulsory process clauses "the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants ‘a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’" Id. at 690. In explaining what that meant, the Court said: "That opportunity would be an empty one if the State were permitted to exclude competent, reliable evidence bearing on the credibility of a confession when such evidence is central to the defendant’s claim of innocence. In the absence of any valid state justification, exclusion of this kind of exculpatory evidence deprives a defendant of the basic right to have the prosecutor’s case encounter and ‘survive the crucible of meaningful adversarial testing.’" Id. at 690-91.
We learn from Crane that a Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure and the interpretation of it by the Kentucky Supreme Court cannot stand in the way of a defendant’s ability to present his full side of the story to the factfinders.
Right to confront witnesses and show testimony false. In Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227 (1988) the trial judge refused to allow a black defendant in his kidnapping, rape, and sodomy trial to cross-examine the white complaining witness regarding her cohabitation with a black boyfriend. The Court held this prohibition violated the 6th amendment right to confrontation of a witness to show the falsity of the witness’ testimony. The excluded evidence was relevant to the defense that the black defendant and the white complainant were engaged in a consensual sexual relationship and that the complainant lied in saying the black defendant raped her out of fear of jeopardizing her relationship with her boyfriend. The Court explained its ruling by emphasizing that "‘the exposure of a witness’ motivation in testifying is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination.’" Id. at 231.
It is clear that "’a criminal defendant states a violation of the Confrontation Clause by showing that he was prohibited from engaging in otherwise appropriate cross-examination designed to show a prototypical form of bias on the part of the witness, and thereby ‘to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors… could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness.’" Id.
"The credibility of a witness’ relevant testimony is always at issue, and the trial court may not exclude evidence that impeaches credibility even though such testimony would be inadmissible to prove a substantive issue in the case." Sanborn v. Commonwealth, Ky., 754 S.W.2d 534, 545 (1988).
Constitutional Right of Defense to test inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. In James v. Commonwealth, Ky., 482 S.W.2d 92, 94 (1972) the Court held that a defendant charged with illegal sale of narcotics was entitled to have a sample of the substance for inspection with his own chemist under Kentucky discovery rules and to avoid a "cat and mouse game whereby the Commonwealth is permitted to withhold important information requested by the accused…"
The defendant in Green v. Commonwealth, Ky.App., 684 S.W.2d 13, 16 (1984) was charged with possession of a Schedule II controlled substance. The state crime lab unnecessarily consumed the entire substance in testing it. The Court of Appeals observed that defense testing is implicitly authorized under Kentucky’s discovery rules. It held under the 14th Amendment due process and Section 11 of Kentucky’s Constitution that "the unnecessary (though unintentional) destruction of the total drug sample, after the defendant stands charged, renders the test results inadmissible, unless the defendant is provided a reasonable opportunity to participate in the testing, or is provided with the notes and other information incidental to the testing, sufficient to enable him to obtain his own expert evaluation. Therefore, the trial court, having refused production of the lab’s notes, the test results (as testified to by forensic chemist, John Harris) regarding the portion of the ‘small, pink, round tablet’, should have been suppressed."
In McGregor v. Hines, Ky., 995 S.W.2d 384, 388 (1999) the Court determined that the defendant who comes into possession of evidence had a due process right to have his own expert test the evidence and does not have to first turn over the evidence to the prosecution's expert. In this case, the testing by the state expert would have consumed the evidence. The defense expert’s more sophisticated testing process would not have consumed the evidence. In a strongly worded statement, the Court determined that the defense should have the evidence to test even if both its and the state’s testing methods would have consumed the evidence. "It is crucial to a defendant’s fundamental right to due process that he be allowed to develop and present any exculpatory evidence in his own defense, and we reject any alternative that would imperil that right."
A defendant is constitutionally entitled to present evidence in mitigation and statutorily entitled to present evidence of leniency. Even if a court finds evidence not admissible in the guilt/innocence phase of a case, evidence which lessens culpability is clearly admissible in the sentencing phase before jurors.
Under the change in KRS 532.055(2)(b), which became effective July 15, 1998, "The defendant may introduce evidence in mitigation or in support of leniency…."
There is constitutional support for this statutory provision. In Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1, 8 (1986) the Court held it unconstitutional to exclude the relevant evidence in mitigation of punishment of the defendant’s good behavior in jail from the time of arrest until trial.
Evidentiary bars must fall to the right to present a defense. In Green v. Georgia, 442 U.S. 95, 97 (1979) Roosevelt Green, Jr.’s defense was that he was not present when the victim was killed and was not a participant in her death. Green was prevented from introducing in the penalty phase of his capital trial a statement made by a witness who had testified for the state at the codefendant’s trail to the effect that the codefendant admitted to he killed the victim. Since it was hearsay. Georgia allowed admission of declarations against pecuniary but not penal interest. According to the United States Supreme Court, the state had no legitimate reason to keep from the jurors evidence which helps them assess the defense presented by the defendant. Fourteenth Amendment due process requires that a state evidentiary bar to admission must fall when evidence is "highly relevant to a critical issue…. and substantial reasons existed to assume its reliability." Id. at 97. Those reasons included; the witness’ statement was spontaneously made, it was against interest, the state used the evidence against the codefendant.
In reversing, the Court citing Chambers said, "the hearsay rule may not be applied mechanistically to defeat the ends of justice." Id. at 97. See also Gilmore v. Henderson, 825 F.2d 663, 665-667 (2d Cir. 1987) (constitutional error to exclude the testimony of witnesses that provided exculpatory testimony and testimony that would have contradicted another’s testimony).
Procedural failures cannot bar right to present defense. In United States v. Foster, 128 F.3d 949 (6th Cir. 1997) the defense attorney failed to timely subpoena a grand jury witness who would have testified to exculpatory evidence. The trial judge refused to allow the introduction of the grand jury transcript due to the defense’s failure to preserve its request for the testimony meant the witness was not unavailable under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1). Despite the failure of the defense to fully preserve the error, the Sixth Circuit reversed the conviction. The judge’s failure to allow the defense to introduce exculpatory grand jury evidence "could have had a significant impact on the jury’s verdict." Id. at 956.
Fair trials require full presentation of the defense. Our Constitutions insure that a defendant is allowed to present his defense which exculpates him from guilt or exonerates him from a greater degree of guilt or punishment or rebuts harmful prosecution evidence. Defendants deserve to have jurors understand their defense before they render their verdict so their decision is reliable. The public wants verdicts that are correct so they have confidence in them. Full presentation of the defense insures fair process and reliable results. Plain dealing in the presentation of evidence under common sense themes will prove compelling.

Think tank hears child welfare horror stories

Social workers considered sending boy to the Congo for exorcism

Social workers considered sending boy to the Congo for exorcism - Telegraph:

Council chiefs have been criticised for considering sending a boy in their care for exorcism

Sorry for 30-year adoption policy

Sorry for 30-year adoption policy | Herald Sun:

  • Attorney-General Nicola Roxon announces apology
  • Similar to that made over Stolen Generations
  • About 150,000 forced adoptions from '50s to '70s
THE Federal Government will formally apologise to families torn apart by forced adoptions.
The apology, similar to that made to Indigenous Australians and the Stolen Generations, follows a recent parliamentary inquiry that detailed the horrific impact the policy of forced adoption had on mothers and their children
Read More:

Are Foster Children Overmedicated? Government Seeks Improved Guidelines

OpEdNews - Article: Are Foster Children Overmedicated? Government Seeks Improved Guidelines:

It is no secret that foster children can be dangerously overmedicated. Three years ago, Mirko and Regina Ceska of Crawfordville, FLA told former Gov. Charlie Crist their two adopted 12-year-olds had been prescribed 11 pills a day, including the powerful antipsychotic Seroquel, reported the Tampa Bay Times.

Read More:

DNA test proves Indiana man is father of Hancock County boy

DNA test proves Indiana man is father of Hancock County boy — Hancock — Bangor Daily News — BDN Maine:

ELLSWORTH, Maine — A DNA test has confirmed what many people involved in a child custody case have suspected.

Now will he get custody? Will Justice prevail?

Read More:

Saturday, June 23, 2012

Obese father's only ‘crime’ is that he isn’t the best possible parent

Obese father's only ‘crime’ is that he isn’t the best possible parent: Marni Soupcoff | Full Comment | National Post:

On Wednesday, an obese Ottawa man learned that his worst fears had come true: He is being denied custody of his two sons, in part because of his weight.

The very strong presumption in all other cases, however, must be that children belong with their biological parents. Not the parents that would do the best job at meeting their needs if selected from the entire pool of parents available in the whole wide world. The humble and imperfect parents they were born to, no matter how fat or messy or impolitic those parents might be. The courts have no business trying to engineer perfect families.


NCJRS Abstract - National Criminal Justice Reference Service:

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection.
To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the NCJRS Abstracts Database.
How to Obtain Documents
NCJ Number:NCJ 147432  
Journal:Psychological Bulletin  Volume:113  Issue:3  Dated:(1993)  Pages:403-439
Author(s):S J Ceci ; M Bruck
Sponsoring Agency:National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
United States
Publication Date:1993
Type:Issue overviews
Origin:United States
Grant No.:RO1 HD 25775
Annotation:This article puts in historical context the field of children's testimony and describes psychological and legal views of child witnesses held by scholars since the turn of the 20th Century.
Abstract:Although there has been consistent interest in children's suggestibility over the past century, the last 15' years have been the most active in terms of the number of published studies and novel theorizing about the causal mechanisms that underpin the observed findings. A synthesis of this research posits three families of factors--cognitive, social, and biological--that must be considered if one is to understand seemingly contradictory interpretations of the findings. The authors conclude that there are reliable age differences in suggestibility but that even very young children are capable of recalling much that is forensically relevant. Findings are discussed in terms of the role of expert witnesses. The article describes two court cases--the Wee Care Nursery School and the Country Walk Babysitting Service--in which child witnesses provided critical eyewitness testimony. These cases are windows through which to view the authors' points: How accurate are children's recollections of everyday events? How suggestible is the child witness? How much difficulty does the child have distinguishing reality from fantasy? How honest are children? Footnotes, references
Main Term(s):Victims
Index Term(s):Juveniles ; Theory/ ; Criminology ; Juvenile witnesses
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

Chesterfield man charged with firing at child custody lawyer

Chesterfield man charged with firing at child custody lawyer - dailypress.com:

CHESTERFIELD -- A Chesterfield County man faces attempted murder and other charges after police say he shot at the opposing attorney in his child custody case yesterday.

Friday, June 22, 2012

CPS still failing....models are in place for in-home care yet...

DMVC Productions = Results: CPS still failing....models are in place for in-home care yet...:

On April 20, I posted the following about gaining creditbility for Child Protection Services http://dmvc-results.blogspot.com/2012/04/verdicts-sweeping-us-oppossing.html and it showed when court rooms are open the CPS offices came into compliance with Federal Standards.

Pennsylvaniahttp://www.dpw.state.pa.us/ucmprd/groups/public/documents/report/s_001667.pdfhttp://www.dpw.state.pa.us/ucmprd/groups/webcontent/documents/report/p_011889.pdf and Maryland http://www.napcwa.org/Legislative/docs/Maryland.pdf where I spoke with the deputy commissioner have all had success for a couple of years now; with service provided in their clients homes over foster care. Yet, it appears New Hampshire is not the only state not getting the big picture; Utah is just about behind the times as well http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54343486-78/care-services-foster-kids.html.csp

N.H. Citizens Have Had Enough Abuses in the N.H. Family Court

STOP! Judicial Child Abuse - N.H. Family Courts - Destroying One Family At A Time:


As it is apparent to all that a government is constituted by a sovereign people to administer the will of the people, to defend them from oppression and violence; and whereas God did not create the people slaves to their government, to obey its commands, whether right or wrong, but rather God created a people imbued with reason, who established a government for their common benefit, protection, and security: to administer the laws and rules the people have found right and meet to establish for mutual peace and prosperity, to witness in the body politic the inexpressible love the Creator has manifested in his creation of natural law, and to defend and preserve themselves, even at the hazard of life, in support of the convictions their Creator has placed in their hearts.
Whenever the ends of government are manifestly endangered and the power delegated to the government is perverted to oppress the people in their practices and beliefs, seeking opportunities to infringe on their ancient customs and rights, exacting from them a slavish compliance, then this is no longer a government approved by God and constituted by the people, but a tyrannous mob, and the people must consider it in no other view. This condition is more particularly venomous when this usurpation is done deliberately, unauthorized by the people or by their representatives. When such a time arises in the course of human events, the people may not only disallow this authority, but lawfully put aside and abjure this government and its officers for the choice of an administration and officers more favored in the light of their own eyes. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of all humanity.
This is the only method left for people whose humble petitions and pleadings have never softened the hardened hearts of the administrators of a government, nor have dissuaded officers from the tyrannous progress of their designs. This is what the law of nature and our sovereign God dictate for the defense of liberty, which we have an obligation to pass down to our posterity, even at the hazard of our own lives.
Now, thus, we have seen numerous acts of violence and tyranny exacted by judges and officers of the courts of New Hampshire on its sovereign citizens:
Judges have allowed children to be taken from fit parents in secret hearings without recourse to the law for many years.
Judges have unlawfully removed children from the care of their fit parents, then continued to deny the familial love and interest of the children and their parents, by violating criminal laws to cover up the original unlawful removal and to fabricate evidence against the already aggrieved parents to cover up the first crimes against the families.
Judges have allowed friends of the court to claim the authority of the court without appointment, to claim fees for services never contracted, to determine court decisions without hearing, and then to threaten the abused, who refused to pay and refused these services, with indefinite incarceration merely for objecting to the court’s authority to ignore the law.
Judges have violated laws of the legislature, then, refusing to recuse themselves from their criminal trials, participated as both criminal defendant and judge, exonerating themselves of wrongdoing.
Judges have created, sua sponte, a class of individuals, guardians ad litem, who have the full authority of judges to go about the people and report back to the judges alleged crimes and infractions, which the judges then act upon without trial, incarcerating citizens, threatening and denying them liberty, and taking their property without any recourse in law against said guardians and their false reports.
Judges have unlawfully removed children in secret hearings from the care of fit parents for the practice of Christian worship, prayer, Bible study, and attendance at church, for many years without recourse to a hearing.
Judges have neglected the best interests of our children by rejecting the statutes the New Hampshire General Court enacted to protect families under RSA 461-A, Parental Rights and Responsibilities.
Judges have denied parents federally protected rights of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law and without equal protection under the law.
Judges have knowingly and willfully violated their own code of Judicial Conduct in woeful disregard of impartiality and fairness, have demonstrated abject bias and prejudice against parents, have denied parents the right to be heard in court, have compelled parents to bear witness against themselves, demanded excessive bail and incarcerated parents when challenged to conform to the law that their own oaths demand they uphold.
Judges have denied parents the right to counsel, the right to be heard, and have ignored the numerous petitions to rectify these plain errors of the court, resulting in yet further abuse and injury of parents and their children.
Judges have denied the right to freedom of the press, after one of their own was documented on video and before the eyes of the world ordering a false arrest and alleging infamous and non-existent crimes against a journalist.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated petitions have been answered by repeated injury only. A government whose every act is thus marked by the above-cited injuries and abuses is unfit to administer the will of a free and sovereign people. It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his life, liberty, property, and character, that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice. It is, therefore, not only the best policy, but for the security of the rights of the people, that the judges of the courts should hold their offices so long as they behave well.
So, despairing of any hope from the courts and finding no other remedy, we have, agreeable to the law of nature and to our own sovereign liberty in our own defense and for maintaining the rights, privileges and liberties of our fellow citizens and our future posterity from being enslaved by the courts, do hereby abjure and renounce the authority of the courts and pursue such methods as appear to us most likely to secure our ancient liberties and rights. Being reduced to the last extremity, as witnessed by the foul acts above, we have unanimously and deliberately declared that the courts of New Hampshire have forfeited,ipso jure, all authority over the people of this State, and we also are determined henceforward not to acknowledge the courts’ authority or jurisdiction, but rather to dissolve their existence from across the breadth and width of the land.
We, therefore, the People of the State of New Hampshire, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do solemnly publish and declare the following acts of abjuration and reformation of the courts.
Pass CACR 26.
Rededicate Cheshire Superior Court as Thomas Ball Memorial Court of Cheshire County.
Convene a Constitutional Convention July 1, 2013, in Concord to reform and re-establish the Courts of the State, according to the will of the people and their representatives.