STOP! Judicial Child Abuse: Joshua Youssef Responds to AG Delaney's Misinformation Editorial on The Redress Committee:
In his recent op-ed slamming through House Redress of Grievance Committee, Atty. General Delaney has not represented the full story.
I am petitioner 26 before the Redress of Grievance Committee. I presented approximately 5 hours of petitioner testimony before the committee. It is online in its entirety at www.judicialchildabuse.com.
Read More:
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
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Questioning Government Ethics - Massachusetts & NH
DMVC Productions: Questing Government Ethics - Massachusetts & NH:
What is happening to Children in Foster Care and/or Children of Parents who are being denied the right to know about the care their child is receiving? The answers are morally and ethically reprehensible.
1.8 million lawsuit settled in 1998 for testing on Children was obviously nothing compared to the income these government run agency's are collecting.
Read More:
What is happening to Children in Foster Care and/or Children of Parents who are being denied the right to know about the care their child is receiving? The answers are morally and ethically reprehensible.
1.8 million lawsuit settled in 1998 for testing on Children was obviously nothing compared to the income these government run agency's are collecting.
Read More:
Open Letter to NH Attorney General Delaney
AG Delaney,
Your recent op-ed articles and letter to Speaker Bill O'Brien slamming the Redress Grievance Committee in their quest for truth and justice pertaining to the NH families railroaded by NH DCYF and the NH Family Court's leaves me, as well other's in total awe.
According to YOUR web-site: http://doj.nh.gov/
The mission of the department is to serve the people of New Hampshire with diligence, independence and integrity by performing the constitutional, statutory and common law duties of the Attorney General as the State's chief legal officer and chief law enforcement officer, to seek to do justice in all prosecutions, to provide the State with legal representation and counsel of the highest quality, to protect the State's environment and the rights of its consumers, and to provide supervision and leadership of New Hampshire law enforcement.
After reading YOUR Mission statement, it leaves me to ask why you have neglected to serve the people of NH when they have requested your assistance in these matter's of grave concern?
When Kelly Ayotte was at the helm, her staff stated the AG's office "does NOT' take complaint's about DCYF and DCYF works for the AG. When I filed complaint's with the Consumer Protection Agency, which you are the head of, correct? I was told you have No jurisdiction over DCYF, SNHMC or the Nashua Area Health Center. You instead stand behind a rogue Govt. agency and the Family Court's who let DCYF pull their strings. Why? Because the State would lose Federal funding if children weren't taken from innocent parent's and families? Is money more important to the state of NH than family? So where does one go to report the injustices bestowed upon them by any of the three?
I wrote to you several times and Kelly Ayotte several times, to no avail. When I reported the fraud within DCYF, I was referred to Ann Rice from your office. I was told DCYF didn't break any Law's because the Administrative Rules they didn't follow were NOT Law. The Ombudsman told me the same thing. So where does a NH citizen go to get justice?
Now we have the Redress Grievance Committee. A group of underpaid hero's, fighting the injustices DCYF and the Family Court's have bestowed upon us. We, the parent's and families who have brought Petition's before the Redress Committee, have not just made accusation's as you state in your letter. We have provided REAL proof. The Redress Committee are the only people who have taken the time to read over ALL the paperwork we have provided. A huge task in itself. A task DCYF nor the Family Court's obviously neglected to do. So yes, the Redress Committee has seen for themselves that we were railroaded.
Our children taken due to Hearsay, which according to the Supreme Court:
CRAWFORDWASHINGTON SUPREME COURT RULES 9-0-ON MARCH 8, 2004, SUPREME COURT RULES THAT HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN CHILD ABUSE/NEGLECT AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES IS NOT ADMISSIBLE. So why is it still admissible in NH?
Our children and grandchildren were taken due to SLANDER? Yes, SLANDER, along with unpunished perjury by DCYF. We possess the PROOF and what proof we don't possess, we have been denied by the Family Court Judges who let DCYF pull their string's. And why wouldn't they where there's money to be made off our ILLEGALLY stolen children?
In your letter, you stated: Since it is obvious DCYF has no such policies, my office has advised DCYF to refrain from answering these questions while my office request's withdrawl.
AG Delaney, If DCYF has NO such policies, then what gives DCYF the right to use these deceitful practices on parent's and family member's? The point is, DCYF is NOT following their own policies or their Administrative Rules. They are making up their own Rules to suit themselves.
DCYF Protocols are supposed to be followed, just as any other "Business" HAS to follow Protocol's and Rules. Why should DCYF be any different?
Your recent op-ed articles and letter to Speaker Bill O'Brien slamming the Redress Grievance Committee in their quest for truth and justice pertaining to the NH families railroaded by NH DCYF and the NH Family Court's leaves me, as well other's in total awe.
According to YOUR web-site: http://doj.nh.gov/
The mission of the department is to serve the people of New Hampshire with diligence, independence and integrity by performing the constitutional, statutory and common law duties of the Attorney General as the State's chief legal officer and chief law enforcement officer, to seek to do justice in all prosecutions, to provide the State with legal representation and counsel of the highest quality, to protect the State's environment and the rights of its consumers, and to provide supervision and leadership of New Hampshire law enforcement.
After reading YOUR Mission statement, it leaves me to ask why you have neglected to serve the people of NH when they have requested your assistance in these matter's of grave concern?
When Kelly Ayotte was at the helm, her staff stated the AG's office "does NOT' take complaint's about DCYF and DCYF works for the AG. When I filed complaint's with the Consumer Protection Agency, which you are the head of, correct? I was told you have No jurisdiction over DCYF, SNHMC or the Nashua Area Health Center. You instead stand behind a rogue Govt. agency and the Family Court's who let DCYF pull their strings. Why? Because the State would lose Federal funding if children weren't taken from innocent parent's and families? Is money more important to the state of NH than family? So where does one go to report the injustices bestowed upon them by any of the three?
I wrote to you several times and Kelly Ayotte several times, to no avail. When I reported the fraud within DCYF, I was referred to Ann Rice from your office. I was told DCYF didn't break any Law's because the Administrative Rules they didn't follow were NOT Law. The Ombudsman told me the same thing. So where does a NH citizen go to get justice?
Now we have the Redress Grievance Committee. A group of underpaid hero's, fighting the injustices DCYF and the Family Court's have bestowed upon us. We, the parent's and families who have brought Petition's before the Redress Committee, have not just made accusation's as you state in your letter. We have provided REAL proof. The Redress Committee are the only people who have taken the time to read over ALL the paperwork we have provided. A huge task in itself. A task DCYF nor the Family Court's obviously neglected to do. So yes, the Redress Committee has seen for themselves that we were railroaded.
Our children taken due to Hearsay, which according to the Supreme Court:
CRAWFORDWASHINGTON SUPREME COURT RULES 9-0-ON MARCH 8, 2004, SUPREME COURT RULES THAT HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN CHILD ABUSE/NEGLECT AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES IS NOT ADMISSIBLE. So why is it still admissible in NH?
Our children and grandchildren were taken due to SLANDER? Yes, SLANDER, along with unpunished perjury by DCYF. We possess the PROOF and what proof we don't possess, we have been denied by the Family Court Judges who let DCYF pull their string's. And why wouldn't they where there's money to be made off our ILLEGALLY stolen children?
In your letter, you stated: Since it is obvious DCYF has no such policies, my office has advised DCYF to refrain from answering these questions while my office request's withdrawl.
AG Delaney, If DCYF has NO such policies, then what gives DCYF the right to use these deceitful practices on parent's and family member's? The point is, DCYF is NOT following their own policies or their Administrative Rules. They are making up their own Rules to suit themselves.
DCYF Protocols are supposed to be followed, just as any other "Business" HAS to follow Protocol's and Rules. Why should DCYF be any different?
You also stated: DCYF receives annually more than 5,000 report's of suspected abuse and neglect. You fail to mention how many of these report's are proven false. Called in, in retaliation by someone who want's to get back at the parent. Proven false report's where the children are still NEVER returned. Many of the Report's not even investigated, as stated in testimony by DCYF worker's. Proven false report's relayed to Judges, without evidence ever being submitted. Slandering grandparent's in order to place a child in foster care. Yes, AG Delaney. I possess the proven false report which doesn't state where the supposed abuse took place, yet one of your infamous DCYF Attorney's told the Judge the supposed abuse took place in my home. I call that SLANDER! What do you call it?
And not slandered once, but slandered again, by another DCYF Attorney after my two grandchildren were placed in my home, against the Atty's wishes. The Atty. stated the children's Aunt was using illegal drug's in my home, so the children were dragged from my house. Odd, but a DCYF caseworker was randomly drug testing the Aunt daily. Every drug test was clean. I call this SLANDER.
My family is not the only family in NH railroaded by the deceitful practices of DCYF and the Family Court's.
There are many more families coming forward, no longer afraid of the threat's bestowed upon them by the almighty DCYF.
Don't you think an investigation is well overdue? Thank God for the Redress Grievance Committee and thank God for our Constitution!
Unhappy Grammy
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
NH AG Delaney Letter to William O'Brien-Speaker of the House
Link: NH AG Delaney Letter to William O'Brien-Speaker of the House
Pertaining to NH DCYF Meeting With The NH Redress Grievance Committee
In AG Delaney's letter, he states: Since it is obvious DCYF has no such policies, my office has advised DCYF to refrain from answering these questions while my office request's withdrawl.
AG Delaney, you are missing the picture. If DCYF has NO such policies, then what gives DCYF the right to use these deceitful practices on parent's and family member's? The point is, DCYF is NOT following their own policies or their Administrative Rules. They are making up their own Rules to suit themselves.
DCYF Protocols are supposed to be followed, just as any other "Business" HAS to follow Protocol's and Rules. Why should DCYF be any different?
You also stated: The Primary goals of RSA chapter 169-C are to:
(a) Protect the safety of children
Yes! Protect them from DCYF
(b) Preserve the unity of the family whenever possible
You better think this one over, because every report, be it true or false, the child is "always" in imminent danger and is taken
(c) Provide assistance to parent's to deal with and correct problems in order to avoid removal of children from the family
You better think about this one also, because parent's are NOT provided services before their child is removed
(d) Take such action as may be necessary to prevent abuse and neglect of children
Is this when DCYF pull's out their crystal ball and takes the child for "anticipated Neglect in the Future"?
(e) Provide protection, treatment and rehabilitation, as needed; to children placed in alternative care
Is this where DCYF lies to the Court and removes a child from a home, places the child in foster care where he tries to hang himself and tries to beat on everyone in the Foster home with a baseball bat, because of his new found violent behavior. Because a DCYF Lawyer lied to the Judge in order to take him from his grandparent's? So does the treatment consist of putting him the NH Psychiatric Hospital and drugging him. That's really good treatment alright!
AG Delaney, you just don't have a clue as to what DCYF is pulling on NH families. The proof is in the document's. Try reading them!
Pertaining to NH DCYF Meeting With The NH Redress Grievance Committee
In AG Delaney's letter, he states: Since it is obvious DCYF has no such policies, my office has advised DCYF to refrain from answering these questions while my office request's withdrawl.
AG Delaney, you are missing the picture. If DCYF has NO such policies, then what gives DCYF the right to use these deceitful practices on parent's and family member's? The point is, DCYF is NOT following their own policies or their Administrative Rules. They are making up their own Rules to suit themselves.
DCYF Protocols are supposed to be followed, just as any other "Business" HAS to follow Protocol's and Rules. Why should DCYF be any different?
You also stated: The Primary goals of RSA chapter 169-C are to:
(a) Protect the safety of children
Yes! Protect them from DCYF
(b) Preserve the unity of the family whenever possible
You better think this one over, because every report, be it true or false, the child is "always" in imminent danger and is taken
(c) Provide assistance to parent's to deal with and correct problems in order to avoid removal of children from the family
You better think about this one also, because parent's are NOT provided services before their child is removed
(d) Take such action as may be necessary to prevent abuse and neglect of children
Is this when DCYF pull's out their crystal ball and takes the child for "anticipated Neglect in the Future"?
(e) Provide protection, treatment and rehabilitation, as needed; to children placed in alternative care
Is this where DCYF lies to the Court and removes a child from a home, places the child in foster care where he tries to hang himself and tries to beat on everyone in the Foster home with a baseball bat, because of his new found violent behavior. Because a DCYF Lawyer lied to the Judge in order to take him from his grandparent's? So does the treatment consist of putting him the NH Psychiatric Hospital and drugging him. That's really good treatment alright!
AG Delaney, you just don't have a clue as to what DCYF is pulling on NH families. The proof is in the document's. Try reading them!
Video of teen restrained, shocked for hours expected to be played in court
Video of teen restrained, shocked for hours expected to be played in court:
Kevin Rothstein Producer Kevin.Rothstein@foxtv.com
Read more: http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/undercover/video-of-teen-restrained-shocked-for-hours-to-be-played-in-court-20120410#ixzz1rlS6tK5Z
Kevin Rothstein Producer Kevin.Rothstein@foxtv.com
DEDHAM (FOX 25 / MyFoxBoston.com) - Video of a student restrained and shocked for hours at the Judge Rotenberg Center was played in court on Tuesday after a years-long battle by the center to keep it from the public eye.
Read more: http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/undercover/video-of-teen-restrained-shocked-for-hours-to-be-played-in-court-20120410#ixzz1rlS6tK5Z
New Hampshire State Government - State Constitution
NH.gov - The Official Web Site of New Hampshire State Government - State Constitution:
Right to Petition-Number 32 And 31
Right to Petition-Number 32 And 31
| State Constitution |
ESTABLISHED OCTOBER 31, 1783 TO TAKE EFFECT JUNE 2, 1784 AS SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED AND IN FORCE JANUARY 2007
|
| PART FIRST- BILL OF RIGHTS Article 1. Equality of men; origin and object of government. 2. Natural rights. 2-a. The bearing of arms. 3. Society, its organization and purposes. 4. Rights of conscience unalienable. 5. Religious freedom recognized. 6. Morality and piety. 7. State sovereignty. 8. Accountability of magistrates and officers; public’s right to know. 9. No hereditary office or place. 10. Right of revolution. 11. Elections and elective franchises. 12. Protection and taxation reciprocal. 12-a. Power t take property limited. 13. Conscientious objectors not compelled to bear arms. 14. Legal remedies to be free, complete, and prompt. 15. Right of accused. 16. Former jeopardy; jury trial in capital cases. 17. Venue of criminal prosecution. 18. Penalties to be proportioned to offenses; true design of punishment. 19. Searches and seizures regulated. 20. Jury trial in civil causes. 21. Jurors; compensation. 22. Free speech; liberty of the press. 23. Retrospective laws prohibited. 24. Militia. 25. Standing armies. 26. Military, subject to civil power. 27. Quartering of soldiers. 28. Taxes, by whom levied. 28-a. Mandated programs. 29. Suspension of laws by legislature only. 30. Freedom of speech. 31. Meetings of legislature, for what purposes. Whereas, the New Hampshire Bill of Rights at Article 31, Part First of the New Hampshire Constitution provides that "The legislature shall assemble for the redress of public grievances and for making such Laws as the public good may require;" and 32. Rights of assembly, instruction, and petition. Whereas, the New Hampshire Bill of Rights at Article 32, Part First of the New Hampshire Constitution provides that "The people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble and consult upon the common good, give instructions to their representatives, and to request of the legislative body, by way of petition or remonstrance, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer;" and 33. Excessive bail, fines, and punishments prohibited. 34. Martial law limited. 35. The judiciary; tenure of office, etc. 36. Pensions. 36-a. Use of retirement funds. 37. Separation of powers. 38. Social virtues inculcated. 39. Changes in town and city charters; referendum required. PART SECOND --- FORM OF GOVERNMENT 1. Name of body politic. 2. Legislature, how constituted. 3. General court, when to meet and dissolve. 4. Power of general court to establish courts. 5. Power to make laws, elect officers, define their powers and duties, impose fines, and assess taxes; prohibited from authorizing towns to aid certain corporations. 5-a. Continuity of government in case of enemy attack. 5-b. Power to provide for tax valuations based on use. 6. Valuation and taxation. 6-a. Use of certain revenues restricted to highways. 6-b. Use of Lottery Revenues Restricted to Educational Purposes. 7. Members of legislature not to take fees or act as counsel. 8. Open sessions of legislature. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 9. Representatives elected every second year; apportionment of representatives. 9-a. Legislative adjustments of census with reference to non-residents. 10. [Repealed, 1889.] 11. Small towns, representation by districts and floterial districts. 11-a. Division of town, ward, or place; representative districts. 12. Biennial election of representatives in November. 13. [Repealed, 1976.] 14. Representatives, how elected, qualifications of. 15. Compensation of the legislature. 16. Vacancies in house, how filled. 17. House to impeach before the senate. 18. Money bills to originate in house. 18-a. Budget bills. 19. Adjournment. 20. Quorum, what constitutes. 21. Privileges of members of the legislature. 22. House to elect speaker and officers, settle rules of proceedings, and punish misconduct. 23. Senate and executive have like powers; imprisonment limited. 24. Journals and laws to be pub lished; yeas and nays, and protests. SENATE 25. Senate; how constituted. 26. Senatorial districts, how constituted. 26-a. Division of town, ward, or lace; senatorial districts. 27. Election of senators. 28. [Repealed, 1976.] 29. Qualifications of senators. 30. Inhabitant defined. 31. Inhabitants of unincorporated places; their rights, etc. 32. Biennial meetings, how warned, governed, and conducted; return of votes, etc. 33. Secretary of state to count votes for senators and notify persons elected. 34. Vacancies in senate, how filled. 35. Senate, judges of their own elections. 36. Adjournment. 37. Senate to elect their own officers; quorum. 38. Senate to try impeachments; mode of proceeding. 39. Judgment on impeachment limited. 40. Chief justice to preside on impeachment of governor. EXECUTIVE POWER - GOVERNOR 41. Governor, supreme executive magistrate. 42. Election of governor, return of votes; electors; if no choice, legislature to elect one of two highest candidates; qualifications for governor. 43. In cases of disagreement, governor to adjourn or prorogue legislature; if causes exist, may convene them elsewhere. 44. Veto to bills. 45. Resolves to be treated like bills. 46. Nomination and appointment of officers. 47. Governor and council have negative on each other. 48. [Repealed, 1976.] 49. President of senate, etc. to act as governor when office vacant; speaker of house to act when office of president of senate also vacant. 49-a. Prolonged failure to qualify; vacancy in office of governor due to physical or mental incapacity, etc. 50. Governor to prorogue or adjourn legislature, and call extra sessions. 51. Powers and duties of governor as commander-in-chief. 52. Pardoning power. 53. [Repealed, 1976.] 54. [Repealed, 1976.] 55. [Repealed, 1976.] 56. Disbursements from treasury. 57. [Repealed, 1950.] 58. Compensation of governor and council. 59. Salaries of judges. COUNCIL 60. Councilors; mode of election, etc. 61. Vacancies, how filled, if no choice. 62. Subsequent vacancies; governor to convene; duties. 63. Impeachment of councilors. 64. Secretary to record proceedings of council. 65. Councilor districts provided for. 66. Elections by legislature may be adjourned from day to day; order thereof. SECRETARY, TREASURER, ETC. 67. Election of secretary and treasurer. 68. State records, where kept; duty of secretary. 69. Deputy secretary. 70. Secretary to give bond. COUNTY TREASURER, ETC. 71. County treasurers, registers of probate, county attorneys, sheriffs, and registers of deeds elected. 72. Counties may be divided into districts for registering deeds. JUDICIARY POWER 72-a. Supreme and superior courts. 73. Tenure of office to be expressed in commissions; judges to hold office during good behavior, etc.; removal. 73-a. Supreme court, administration 74. Judges to give opinions, when. 75. Justices of peace commissioned for five years. 76. Divorce and probate appeals, where tried. 77. Jurisdiction of justices in civil causes. 78. Judges and sheriffs, when disqualified by age. 79. Judges and justices not to act as counsel. 80. Jurisdiction and term of probate courts. 81. Judges and registers of probate not to act as counsel. CLERKS OF COURTS 82. Clerks of courts, by whom appointed. ENCOURAGEMENT OF LITERATURE, TRADE, ETC. 83. Encouragement of literature, etc.; control of corporations, monopolies, etc. OATHS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS EXCLUSION FROM OFFICES, ETC. 84. Oath of civil officers. 85. Before whom taken. 86. Form of commissions. 87. Form of writs. 88. Form of indictments, etc. 89. Suicides and deodands. 90. Existing laws continued if not repugnant. 91. Habeas corpus. 92. Enacting style of statutes. 93. Governor and judges prohibited from holding other offices. 94. Incompatibility of offices; only two offices of profit to be holden at same time. 95. Incompatibility of certain offices. 96. Bribery and corruption disqualify for office. 97. [Repealed, 1950.] 98. Constitution, when to take effect. 99. [Repealed, 1980.] 100. Alternate methods of Proposing amendments. 101. Enrollment of constitution. |
Governor Lynch and Attorney General Delaney hide behind the Transparency Curtain
DMVC Productions: Governor Lynch and Attorney General Delaney hide behind the Transparency Curtain:
If you google "Governor Lynch and Transparency" you will find a surprising amount of article's about his alleged transparency in New Hampshire Government. As a woman my intuition tells me that George Jean Nathan had the right idea he said "What passes for woman's intuition is often nothing more than man's transparency." In this case it's obvious there is none!
The recent article on NH Attorney General Delaney feeling badgered by the Legislative Branch seeking transparency in the Department of Health and Human Services as well as the Department of Children Youth and Families certainly shows that Governor Lynch is just a talker without action as shown below:
Read More:
If you google "Governor Lynch and Transparency" you will find a surprising amount of article's about his alleged transparency in New Hampshire Government. As a woman my intuition tells me that George Jean Nathan had the right idea he said "What passes for woman's intuition is often nothing more than man's transparency." In this case it's obvious there is none!
The recent article on NH Attorney General Delaney feeling badgered by the Legislative Branch seeking transparency in the Department of Health and Human Services as well as the Department of Children Youth and Families certainly shows that Governor Lynch is just a talker without action as shown below:
Read More:
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)