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
Monday, November 15, 2010
Psychiatrists assist Fraud in the Killer Family Courts by John Aster supporting CCHR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbBC4UDoF3U
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Have You Had Your Ritalin Today?
Have You Had
Your Ritalin Today?
by Gemma Hughes
art/Eric Spitler
In the past, society believed that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. Today we believe that the government knows what's best for us and that the drug Ritalin (Methylphenidate) is a cure for the brain disorders Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
The number of children diagnosed with ADD and ADHD has increased dramatically in the last decade, along with the prescription of Ritalin, the drug of choice supposed to treat these disorders. It is not uncommon to find 30% of a school's students taking Ritalin or other drugs that claim to treat ADHD (Judyth Reichenberg-Ullman, N.D., M.S.W., and Robert Ullman, N.D. Ritalin Free Kids).
Read More:http://www.impactpress.com/articles/decjan01/ritalin120101.html
Your Ritalin Today?
by Gemma Hughes
art/Eric Spitler
In the past, society believed that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. Today we believe that the government knows what's best for us and that the drug Ritalin (Methylphenidate) is a cure for the brain disorders Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
The number of children diagnosed with ADD and ADHD has increased dramatically in the last decade, along with the prescription of Ritalin, the drug of choice supposed to treat these disorders. It is not uncommon to find 30% of a school's students taking Ritalin or other drugs that claim to treat ADHD (Judyth Reichenberg-Ullman, N.D., M.S.W., and Robert Ullman, N.D. Ritalin Free Kids).
Read More:http://www.impactpress.com/articles/decjan01/ritalin120101.html
Are Child Protection Systems Around The World Getting It Wrong?
Are Child Protection Systems Around The World Getting It Wrong?
Christina EnglandNovember 14, 2010
It has been reported that 28.6% of Canada's children and youths are vulnerable to physical and/or emotional injury. These statistics were stated by the information website Child Abuse Effects.
The Canadian Child Welfare Research Portal reported that in 2007 an estimated 67,000 children were in out-of-home care across Canada.
The figures shown in a briefing document Child protection statistics: A UK comparison for children referred to child protection were unbelievable in the UK in the same year, with England being as high as 545,000, Wales 49,561 and Scotland 11,960.
In the USA the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Administration for Children and Families Administration on Children, Youth and Families Children´s Bureau wrote a report entitled Child Maltreatment 2006 which reported that:
"During Federal fiscal year 2006, an estimated 3.3 million referrals, involving the alleged maltreatment of approximately 6.0 million children, were made to CPS agencies."
Out of these an estimated 905,000 children were determined to be victims of abuse or neglect. Interestingly the report states that:
"Children in the age group of birth to 1 year had the highest rate of victimization at 24.4 per 1,000 children of the same age group in the national population"
These figures although slightly out of date are staggering but how many of the children in care today have actually been taken from loving caring families? One would hope none of them had but sadly this is not the case. Some children it appears are taken from families who are loving and caring because the child protection system has got it wrong.
Read More:http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/198970
Christina EnglandNovember 14, 2010
It has been reported that 28.6% of Canada's children and youths are vulnerable to physical and/or emotional injury. These statistics were stated by the information website Child Abuse Effects.
The Canadian Child Welfare Research Portal reported that in 2007 an estimated 67,000 children were in out-of-home care across Canada.
The figures shown in a briefing document Child protection statistics: A UK comparison for children referred to child protection were unbelievable in the UK in the same year, with England being as high as 545,000, Wales 49,561 and Scotland 11,960.
In the USA the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Administration for Children and Families Administration on Children, Youth and Families Children´s Bureau wrote a report entitled Child Maltreatment 2006 which reported that:
"During Federal fiscal year 2006, an estimated 3.3 million referrals, involving the alleged maltreatment of approximately 6.0 million children, were made to CPS agencies."
Out of these an estimated 905,000 children were determined to be victims of abuse or neglect. Interestingly the report states that:
"Children in the age group of birth to 1 year had the highest rate of victimization at 24.4 per 1,000 children of the same age group in the national population"
These figures although slightly out of date are staggering but how many of the children in care today have actually been taken from loving caring families? One would hope none of them had but sadly this is not the case. Some children it appears are taken from families who are loving and caring because the child protection system has got it wrong.
Read More:http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/198970
Small Justice: U.S. Courts Harm Children, $ Buys 'Justice'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0LILd0wtbU&feature=player_embedded
CIVIL LIBERTIES WITHOUT EXCEPTION: NCCPR’s Due Process Agenda for Children and Families
CIVIL LIBERTIES WITHOUT EXCEPTION:
NCCPR’s Due Process Agenda for Children and Families
By Richard Wexler, NCCPR Executive Director
August, 2008
INTRODUCTION
Suppose, when he was attorney general, John Ashcroft had proposed anti-terrorism
legislation with the following provisions:
Special anti-terrorism police could search any home without a warrant – and
stripsearch any occupant -- based solely on an anonymous telephone tip. Any occupant of
the home could be detained for 24 hours to two weeks without so much as a hearing – and
they’ll probably be detained far longer because, in the special anti-terrorism court set up by
this legislation, all the judges are afraid to look soft on “terrorists.”
At that first hearing the detainees may – or may not – get a lawyer just before the
hearing begins, and they almost never get effective counsel.
At almost every stage, the standard of proof is not “beyond a reasonable doubt”
or even “clear and convincing” but merely “preponderance of the evidence,” the lowest
standard in American jurisprudence, the same one used to determine which insurance company
pays for a fender-bender.
And in most states, all the hearings and all the records are secret.
Had Ashcroft proposed such legislation, civil libertarians would have been in an
uproar. Yet this is, in fact, the law governing child welfare. And sadly, many who in other
circumstances are quick to defend civil liberties either stand silent or support it.
The National Coalition for Child Protection Reform believes the only way truly to
protect children is to demand civil liberties without exception. There can be no true child
protection when a government agency is given virtually unchecked power, almost no accountability,
and operates in secret.
That is why enacting meaningful due process protections for families is at least as
important as improving the “services” they receive from child welfare agencies.
Since 2000, NCCPR has issued reports on 13 state or local child welfare systems.
Below are some of the due process recommendations from these various reports.
RECOMMENDATION 1:
TRANSPARENCY
All court hearings in child
maltreatment cases and almost all
documents should be subject to a
“rebuttable presumption” of openness.
Hearings and records would be
closed only if the lawyer for the parents
or the guardian ad litem for the child
could persuade the judge, by clear and
convincing evidence, that opening a given
record or portion of a hearing would
cause severe emotional damage to a child.
The judge then would keep closed
only the minimum amount of material
needed to avoid the damage.
The people who work for child protective
services agencies are not evil. But
even the best of us would have trouble coping
with nearly unlimited power and no
accountability. One caseworker allegedly
told some parents: “I have the power of
God.” It’s alarming if he said it. But what’s
DUE PROCESS AGENDA/2
even more alarming is: It’s true. Caseworkers
for CPS agencies do have the power of
God.
“[Opening family courts]
has been 100 percent positive
with no negatives … Our
worst critics will say it was the
best thing we ever did. Their
fears were unfounded … I
wish other states would do it.”
--Jonathan Lippman,
Chief Administrative Judge,
State of New York
To give a young, inexperienced
worker the power of God, send her out on
what she is convinced is a Godly mission to
rescue innocent children from the scum of
the earth -- knowing that there will be no
penalty for removal and hell to pay if she
leaves the child home and something goes
wrong -- and then expect her to exercise
self-restraint is more than can be expected of
most human beings. Rarely is the power of
God accompanied by the wisdom of Solomon.
The power must be checked by accountability.
Accountability is not possible
in secret. Nor is accountability possible
simply by hiring people with more expertise
and assuming they will do the right thing.
It’s not supposed to work that way in
a democracy. That is why it is so urgent that
all court hearings and almost all records in
child welfare cases be presumed open.
An exception would be made to the
presumption of openness for portions of
documents that name people who reported
child abuse in confidence. Even then, however,
if a parent claims to be a victim of
harassment, that parent should be allowed to
ask a judge to review the record and, if the
judge agrees there has been harassment,
open this record as well, and give the accused
the right to sue. (See Recommendation
9).
Only the lawyer for a parent and the
guardian ad litem for a child should be allowed
to request secrecy. CPS should not
even be allowed to ask for it. CPS has no
interest in secrecy other than as a way to
cover up its failings. If secrecy truly is
needed to protect a child, that’s what the
guardian ad litem is there to ask for.
The argument against opening hearings
and records is that it would embarrass
children.
That argument fails on several
counts:
• The alleged potential for trauma
does not explain why information is kept
secret even after a child has died.
• In the overwhelming majority of
cases there are no graphic details to report.
Most cases involve “neglect.” A child will
not be testifying about being beaten or raped
because that’s not the accusation.
• The most traumatic cases are likely
to involve not only child protection proceedings
but criminal cases as well. These hearings
already are public. Yet we have never
seen nor heard a single account of a child
saying that she or he was traumatized by the
fact that such a trial was public. Nor do we
know of any adult coming forward years
after the fact to complain of such trauma.
• At least 14 states have opened
child protection proceedings to the press and
the public. Two more let in reporters only.
In every one of these states, the same fears
were expressed. But a comprehensive nationwide
examination by the Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette found that none of the problems
materialized. Indeed, over and over,
one-time critics became converts.1
Read More:
http://www.nccpr.org/reports/dueprocess.pdf
NCCPR’s Due Process Agenda for Children and Families
By Richard Wexler, NCCPR Executive Director
August, 2008
INTRODUCTION
Suppose, when he was attorney general, John Ashcroft had proposed anti-terrorism
legislation with the following provisions:
Special anti-terrorism police could search any home without a warrant – and
stripsearch any occupant -- based solely on an anonymous telephone tip. Any occupant of
the home could be detained for 24 hours to two weeks without so much as a hearing – and
they’ll probably be detained far longer because, in the special anti-terrorism court set up by
this legislation, all the judges are afraid to look soft on “terrorists.”
At that first hearing the detainees may – or may not – get a lawyer just before the
hearing begins, and they almost never get effective counsel.
At almost every stage, the standard of proof is not “beyond a reasonable doubt”
or even “clear and convincing” but merely “preponderance of the evidence,” the lowest
standard in American jurisprudence, the same one used to determine which insurance company
pays for a fender-bender.
And in most states, all the hearings and all the records are secret.
Had Ashcroft proposed such legislation, civil libertarians would have been in an
uproar. Yet this is, in fact, the law governing child welfare. And sadly, many who in other
circumstances are quick to defend civil liberties either stand silent or support it.
The National Coalition for Child Protection Reform believes the only way truly to
protect children is to demand civil liberties without exception. There can be no true child
protection when a government agency is given virtually unchecked power, almost no accountability,
and operates in secret.
That is why enacting meaningful due process protections for families is at least as
important as improving the “services” they receive from child welfare agencies.
Since 2000, NCCPR has issued reports on 13 state or local child welfare systems.
Below are some of the due process recommendations from these various reports.
RECOMMENDATION 1:
TRANSPARENCY
All court hearings in child
maltreatment cases and almost all
documents should be subject to a
“rebuttable presumption” of openness.
Hearings and records would be
closed only if the lawyer for the parents
or the guardian ad litem for the child
could persuade the judge, by clear and
convincing evidence, that opening a given
record or portion of a hearing would
cause severe emotional damage to a child.
The judge then would keep closed
only the minimum amount of material
needed to avoid the damage.
The people who work for child protective
services agencies are not evil. But
even the best of us would have trouble coping
with nearly unlimited power and no
accountability. One caseworker allegedly
told some parents: “I have the power of
God.” It’s alarming if he said it. But what’s
DUE PROCESS AGENDA/2
even more alarming is: It’s true. Caseworkers
for CPS agencies do have the power of
God.
“[Opening family courts]
has been 100 percent positive
with no negatives … Our
worst critics will say it was the
best thing we ever did. Their
fears were unfounded … I
wish other states would do it.”
--Jonathan Lippman,
Chief Administrative Judge,
State of New York
To give a young, inexperienced
worker the power of God, send her out on
what she is convinced is a Godly mission to
rescue innocent children from the scum of
the earth -- knowing that there will be no
penalty for removal and hell to pay if she
leaves the child home and something goes
wrong -- and then expect her to exercise
self-restraint is more than can be expected of
most human beings. Rarely is the power of
God accompanied by the wisdom of Solomon.
The power must be checked by accountability.
Accountability is not possible
in secret. Nor is accountability possible
simply by hiring people with more expertise
and assuming they will do the right thing.
It’s not supposed to work that way in
a democracy. That is why it is so urgent that
all court hearings and almost all records in
child welfare cases be presumed open.
An exception would be made to the
presumption of openness for portions of
documents that name people who reported
child abuse in confidence. Even then, however,
if a parent claims to be a victim of
harassment, that parent should be allowed to
ask a judge to review the record and, if the
judge agrees there has been harassment,
open this record as well, and give the accused
the right to sue. (See Recommendation
9).
Only the lawyer for a parent and the
guardian ad litem for a child should be allowed
to request secrecy. CPS should not
even be allowed to ask for it. CPS has no
interest in secrecy other than as a way to
cover up its failings. If secrecy truly is
needed to protect a child, that’s what the
guardian ad litem is there to ask for.
The argument against opening hearings
and records is that it would embarrass
children.
That argument fails on several
counts:
• The alleged potential for trauma
does not explain why information is kept
secret even after a child has died.
• In the overwhelming majority of
cases there are no graphic details to report.
Most cases involve “neglect.” A child will
not be testifying about being beaten or raped
because that’s not the accusation.
• The most traumatic cases are likely
to involve not only child protection proceedings
but criminal cases as well. These hearings
already are public. Yet we have never
seen nor heard a single account of a child
saying that she or he was traumatized by the
fact that such a trial was public. Nor do we
know of any adult coming forward years
after the fact to complain of such trauma.
• At least 14 states have opened
child protection proceedings to the press and
the public. Two more let in reporters only.
In every one of these states, the same fears
were expressed. But a comprehensive nationwide
examination by the Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette found that none of the problems
materialized. Indeed, over and over,
one-time critics became converts.1
Read More:
http://www.nccpr.org/reports/dueprocess.pdf
RICO In A Nutshell
Contents
Introduction: The Mafia as a Helpful Context
What constitutes a RICO violation?
Section 1962(c) Claims
Defendant Persons
Enterprise
Enterprise / Racketeering Activity Distinction
Person / Enterprise Distinction
An Enterprise Engaged in or Affecting Interstate Commerce
Defendants' Operation or Management of the Enterprise
The Pattern
Relatedness
Continuity
Multiple Schemes and the Pattern
Racketeering Activity
Mail and Wire Fraud
Bank Fraud
Extortion
The Obtaining of Property from Another And Threats of Physical Violence
The Issue of Consent
Extortion under Color Of Official Right
Extortion vs. Legitimate Exercise of Government Power
Other Predicate Acts Related to Extortion
Civil Remedies under Section 1964
Injured "by reason of" a Violation of Section 1962
Intervening Factors
Non-predicate Acts
Independent Contributing Factors
Directly Injured Third-party Victims
Mail Fraud, Wire Fraud, and Bank Fraud - Reasonable Reliance
Injury to Business or Property
Equitable Relief
SECTION 1962(a) & (b) CLAIMS
Association-in-Fact Enterprises Under Sections 1962(a) & (b)
Injury "by reason of" a Section 1962(a) Violation
Injury "by reason of" a Section 1962(b) Violation
CONSPIRACIES TO VIOLATE RICO - SECTION 1962(d)
RICO'S STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Limitations Period
Accrual of a Civil RICO Claim
Early Conflicting Accrual Rules
The Supreme Court's Effort to Resolve the Conflict
Tolling Doctrines
New and Independent Injuries
CONCLUSION
Read More to click into link's at:
http://www.ricoact.com/ricoact/nutshell.asp#constitutes
Introduction: The Mafia as a Helpful Context
What constitutes a RICO violation?
Section 1962(c) Claims
Defendant Persons
Enterprise
Enterprise / Racketeering Activity Distinction
Person / Enterprise Distinction
An Enterprise Engaged in or Affecting Interstate Commerce
Defendants' Operation or Management of the Enterprise
The Pattern
Relatedness
Continuity
Multiple Schemes and the Pattern
Racketeering Activity
Mail and Wire Fraud
Bank Fraud
Extortion
The Obtaining of Property from Another And Threats of Physical Violence
The Issue of Consent
Extortion under Color Of Official Right
Extortion vs. Legitimate Exercise of Government Power
Other Predicate Acts Related to Extortion
Civil Remedies under Section 1964
Injured "by reason of" a Violation of Section 1962
Intervening Factors
Non-predicate Acts
Independent Contributing Factors
Directly Injured Third-party Victims
Mail Fraud, Wire Fraud, and Bank Fraud - Reasonable Reliance
Injury to Business or Property
Equitable Relief
SECTION 1962(a) & (b) CLAIMS
Association-in-Fact Enterprises Under Sections 1962(a) & (b)
Injury "by reason of" a Section 1962(a) Violation
Injury "by reason of" a Section 1962(b) Violation
CONSPIRACIES TO VIOLATE RICO - SECTION 1962(d)
RICO'S STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Limitations Period
Accrual of a Civil RICO Claim
Early Conflicting Accrual Rules
The Supreme Court's Effort to Resolve the Conflict
Tolling Doctrines
New and Independent Injuries
CONCLUSION
Read More to click into link's at:
http://www.ricoact.com/ricoact/nutshell.asp#constitutes
What is ASFA/CAPTA part 4 of 4
What is ASFA/CAPTA part 4 of 4
Marilyn Harrison
In part 3 we were discussing a massive beauricratical organization originally created by Mondale, then fortifided by ASFA and CAPTA, what amounts to a warehousing system of America’s children.
Question; has CPS (Child Protective Services) grown to proportions that scares average citizen’s into submission. Have workers taken it upon themselves to bypass the “Constitution” and the laws of the United States in general, is this protection?
Read our articles CPS comparison to slavery & Foster Care System can it be salvaged
Do workers no longer believe the reason CPS was created in the first place, “The Best Interests of the Child”, America’s children are being used as pawns in a huge chess game, controlled by the rule makers to be changed as needed?
Read More: http://www.examiner.com/foster-families-in-national/foster-parents-did-you-know-what-is-asfa-capta-part-4-of-4
Marilyn Harrison
In part 3 we were discussing a massive beauricratical organization originally created by Mondale, then fortifided by ASFA and CAPTA, what amounts to a warehousing system of America’s children.
Question; has CPS (Child Protective Services) grown to proportions that scares average citizen’s into submission. Have workers taken it upon themselves to bypass the “Constitution” and the laws of the United States in general, is this protection?
Read our articles CPS comparison to slavery & Foster Care System can it be salvaged
Do workers no longer believe the reason CPS was created in the first place, “The Best Interests of the Child”, America’s children are being used as pawns in a huge chess game, controlled by the rule makers to be changed as needed?
Read More: http://www.examiner.com/foster-families-in-national/foster-parents-did-you-know-what-is-asfa-capta-part-4-of-4
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)