Actions of Child Protective Worker While Serving on Jury Results in New Trial for Defendant:
The actions of a Cattaraugus County Child Protective Services caseworker and a substance abuse and mental health counselor while serving on a jury have resulted in a new trial for a man convicted of sexual abuse in the second degree and other charges. According to the New York State Appellate Division, Fourth Department, the two jurors “interjected their professional knowledge into the jury deliberations by voicing opinions that were not the subject of expert testimony at the trial.”
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, January 2, 2012
Sunday, January 1, 2012
NH woman charged with not properly feeding boy
NH woman charged with not properly feeding boy:
NEW DURHAM, N.H. (AP) — A New Hampshire woman is facing first degree assault charges that she failed to provide proper nutrition to a young boy in her care.
NEW DURHAM, N.H. (AP) — A New Hampshire woman is facing first degree assault charges that she failed to provide proper nutrition to a young boy in her care.
Rare Brain Disorder Might Not Be So Rare Say Researchers
Rare Brain Disorder Might Not Be So Rare Say Researchers | Care2 Causes:
A brain disorder once thought to be fairly rare may in fact be more common than was previously thought, a new study into the disorder’s genetic basis by a global team of neuroscientists led by researchers at Mayo Clinic in Florida have found.
Read more:
A brain disorder once thought to be fairly rare may in fact be more common than was previously thought, a new study into the disorder’s genetic basis by a global team of neuroscientists led by researchers at Mayo Clinic in Florida have found.
Read more:
Federal judge should hear Arlington CPS case
Federal judge should hear Arlington CPS case | Barbara Hollingsworth | Columnists | Washington Examiner:
BY: Barbara Hollingsworth | 11/15/11 8:05 PM
Local Opinion Editor
One of the most disturbing stories I've ever written for The Washington Examiner was about a 3-week-old baby girl who was snatched from her mother's arms and placed in foster care by Arlington County Child Protective Services because she lost 10 ounces after birth. Baby Sabrina's story hit me hard in the gut because that could have been me; my youngest daughter lost a whole pound postpartum.
Newborn weight loss is normal, Sabrina was under a doctor's care and had even regained all of her lost birth weight when she was taken. Kit Slitor, a freelance video editor, and his wife, Nancy Hey, a federal employee, were never charged with or convicted of child abuse or neglect, and the Virginia Department of Social Services exonerated them of any wrongdoing. It didn't matter.
After doing everything social workers and the Arlington Domestic and Juvenile Relations Court, or DJR, demanded of them -- including home inspections, supervised visitation, and psychological testing -- their parental rights were terminated and Sabrina was put up for adoption. They spent more than $250,000 fighting for her, all the way to the Virginia Supreme Court, which declined to hear their case.
Four years later, their story still haunts me.
On Sept. 16, a class-action lawsuit modeled after a similar pleading in Massachusetts was filed in federal court in Alexandria on behalf of eight children -- including Sabrina -- who have been placed in foster care by Arlington County.
The list of serious accusations contained in the lawsuit against DJR Judges George Varoutsos and Esther Wiggins, Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Jason McCandless, and various Arlington CPS officials is long: perjury, RICO violations of civil rights, fraud upon the court, obstruction of justice, unconstitutional "ex parte" hearings, court orders that were never served, depriving parents of their due process rights, "missing" court orders, illegal searches and seizures, and felony removal of documents from court files, to name just a few.
Arlington CPS "has not implemented the reforms necessary to remedy the severe and persistent legal violations within its foster care system, despite its longstanding knowledge of these systemic ills," the lawsuit alleges. The allegations are so grave that if the judicial system were working properly, an emergency restraining order against DJR would be issued immediately.
Don't hold your breath. The "next friend" lawsuit was filed by nonlawyer James Renwick Manship, a disabled Navy cryptologist and court-appointed special advocate, on behalf of foster children and their impoverished parents. It's the longest of long shots aimed directly at a corrupt, unaccountable system that holds every card in the deck.
Or almost every card. Judge James Cacheris caused quite a legal stir in May when he cited the landmark Supreme Court Citizens United ruling to strike down a ban on corporate political donations. Campaign finance is an important issue, but it pales in comparison with judicial kidnapping, which strikes at the very heart of Americans' God-given rights.
If social workers and judges can take your child away without due process, the Constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper the powerful can continue to ignore with impunity.
There's still a chance that Cacheris, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Reagan, will search his conscience, rise to the occasion, and allow this David vs. Goliath case to proceed to trial despite tremendous pressure from the legal establishment to ignore the compelling evidence of official misconduct and continue covering up this rot.
Stay tuned.
Barbara F. Hollingsworth is The Examiner's local opinion editor.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/11/federal-judge-should-hear-arlington-cps-case#ixzz1iEBDHZcB
BY: Barbara Hollingsworth | 11/15/11 8:05 PM
Local Opinion Editor
One of the most disturbing stories I've ever written for The Washington Examiner was about a 3-week-old baby girl who was snatched from her mother's arms and placed in foster care by Arlington County Child Protective Services because she lost 10 ounces after birth. Baby Sabrina's story hit me hard in the gut because that could have been me; my youngest daughter lost a whole pound postpartum.
Newborn weight loss is normal, Sabrina was under a doctor's care and had even regained all of her lost birth weight when she was taken. Kit Slitor, a freelance video editor, and his wife, Nancy Hey, a federal employee, were never charged with or convicted of child abuse or neglect, and the Virginia Department of Social Services exonerated them of any wrongdoing. It didn't matter.
After doing everything social workers and the Arlington Domestic and Juvenile Relations Court, or DJR, demanded of them -- including home inspections, supervised visitation, and psychological testing -- their parental rights were terminated and Sabrina was put up for adoption. They spent more than $250,000 fighting for her, all the way to the Virginia Supreme Court, which declined to hear their case.
Four years later, their story still haunts me.
On Sept. 16, a class-action lawsuit modeled after a similar pleading in Massachusetts was filed in federal court in Alexandria on behalf of eight children -- including Sabrina -- who have been placed in foster care by Arlington County.
The list of serious accusations contained in the lawsuit against DJR Judges George Varoutsos and Esther Wiggins, Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Jason McCandless, and various Arlington CPS officials is long: perjury, RICO violations of civil rights, fraud upon the court, obstruction of justice, unconstitutional "ex parte" hearings, court orders that were never served, depriving parents of their due process rights, "missing" court orders, illegal searches and seizures, and felony removal of documents from court files, to name just a few.
Arlington CPS "has not implemented the reforms necessary to remedy the severe and persistent legal violations within its foster care system, despite its longstanding knowledge of these systemic ills," the lawsuit alleges. The allegations are so grave that if the judicial system were working properly, an emergency restraining order against DJR would be issued immediately.
Don't hold your breath. The "next friend" lawsuit was filed by nonlawyer James Renwick Manship, a disabled Navy cryptologist and court-appointed special advocate, on behalf of foster children and their impoverished parents. It's the longest of long shots aimed directly at a corrupt, unaccountable system that holds every card in the deck.
Or almost every card. Judge James Cacheris caused quite a legal stir in May when he cited the landmark Supreme Court Citizens United ruling to strike down a ban on corporate political donations. Campaign finance is an important issue, but it pales in comparison with judicial kidnapping, which strikes at the very heart of Americans' God-given rights.
If social workers and judges can take your child away without due process, the Constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper the powerful can continue to ignore with impunity.
There's still a chance that Cacheris, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Reagan, will search his conscience, rise to the occasion, and allow this David vs. Goliath case to proceed to trial despite tremendous pressure from the legal establishment to ignore the compelling evidence of official misconduct and continue covering up this rot.
Stay tuned.
Barbara F. Hollingsworth is The Examiner's local opinion editor.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/11/federal-judge-should-hear-arlington-cps-case#ixzz1iEBDHZcB
HB591 Public Assembly-New Hampshire
YOUR CHILDREN ARE COUNTING ON YOU TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE....
JOIN US IN SUPPORTING HOUSE BILL 591; SHARED PARENTING HOUSE FLOOR VOTE!!!!!!!!
PUBLIC ASSEMBLY
STATE HOUSE FRONT STEPS
CAPITOL STREET, CONCORD NH.
WEDNESDAY
JANUARY 4TH 2012
7:30AM
BRING SIGNS: "PASS HB-591 CHILDREN DESERVE BOTH PARENTS"
"PASS HB-591 KIDS NEED BOTH PARENTS"
United States Code: Title 18,666. Theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds
United States Code: Title 18,666. Theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds | LII / Legal Information Institute:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 31 > § 666
Prev | Next
§ 666. THEFT OR BRIBERY CONCERNING PROGRAMS RECEIVING FEDERAL FUNDS
How Current is This?
(a) Whoever, if the circumstance described in subsection (b) of this section exists—
(1) being an agent of an organization, or of a State, local, or Indian tribal government, or any agency thereof—
(A) embezzles, steals, obtains by fraud, or otherwise without authority knowingly converts to the use of any person other than the rightful owner or intentionally misapplies, property that—
(i) is valued at $5,000 or more, and
(ii) is owned by, or is under the care, custody, or control of such organization, government, or agency; or
(B) corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more; or
(2) corruptly gives, offers, or agrees to give anything of value to any person, with intent to influence or reward an agent of an organization or of a State, local or Indian tribal government, or any agency thereof, in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving anything of value of $5,000 or more;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
(b) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that the organization, government, or agency receives, in any one year period, benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance.
(c) This section does not apply to bona fide salary, wages, fees, or other compensation paid, or expenses paid or reimbursed, in the usual course of business.
(d) As used in this section—
(1) the term “agent” means a person authorized to act on behalf of another person or a government and, in the case of an organization or government, includes a servant or employee, and a partner, director, officer, manager, and representative;
(2) the term “government agency” means a subdivision of the executive, legislative, judicial, or other branch of government, including a department, independent establishment, commission, administration, authority, board, and bureau, and a corporation or other legal entity established, and subject to control, by a government or governments for the execution of a governmental or intergovernmental program;
(3) the term “local” means of or pertaining to a political subdivision within a State;
(4) the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States; and
(5) the term “in any one-year period” means a continuous period that commences no earlier than twelve months before the commission of the offense or that ends no later than twelve months after the commission of the offense. Such period may include time both before and after the commission of the offense.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 31 > § 666
Prev | Next
§ 666. THEFT OR BRIBERY CONCERNING PROGRAMS RECEIVING FEDERAL FUNDS
How Current is This?
(a) Whoever, if the circumstance described in subsection (b) of this section exists—
(1) being an agent of an organization, or of a State, local, or Indian tribal government, or any agency thereof—
(A) embezzles, steals, obtains by fraud, or otherwise without authority knowingly converts to the use of any person other than the rightful owner or intentionally misapplies, property that—
(i) is valued at $5,000 or more, and
(ii) is owned by, or is under the care, custody, or control of such organization, government, or agency; or
(B) corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more; or
(2) corruptly gives, offers, or agrees to give anything of value to any person, with intent to influence or reward an agent of an organization or of a State, local or Indian tribal government, or any agency thereof, in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving anything of value of $5,000 or more;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
(b) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that the organization, government, or agency receives, in any one year period, benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance.
(c) This section does not apply to bona fide salary, wages, fees, or other compensation paid, or expenses paid or reimbursed, in the usual course of business.
(d) As used in this section—
(1) the term “agent” means a person authorized to act on behalf of another person or a government and, in the case of an organization or government, includes a servant or employee, and a partner, director, officer, manager, and representative;
(2) the term “government agency” means a subdivision of the executive, legislative, judicial, or other branch of government, including a department, independent establishment, commission, administration, authority, board, and bureau, and a corporation or other legal entity established, and subject to control, by a government or governments for the execution of a governmental or intergovernmental program;
(3) the term “local” means of or pertaining to a political subdivision within a State;
(4) the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States; and
(5) the term “in any one-year period” means a continuous period that commences no earlier than twelve months before the commission of the offense or that ends no later than twelve months after the commission of the offense. Such period may include time both before and after the commission of the offense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)