Effie has hit one of the key issues, and one which Dean Tong, as well as others, has made very clear:  Never let their shrinks shrink you.  The burden of proof is on them to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that you are an unfit parent.  They trick you into giving them the bullet to shoot you, because their hired guns will almost always do the "right" thing, and find some dire mental imbalance in you.  So, you refuse to allow their people to do it.  In the short run, it kills you, because they bring unbearable pressure to conform.  In the long run, it saves you, because they have NO EVIDENCE.

GAH


At 09:03 PM 3/14/2004, you wrote:
Oh, haha, this one paragraph brought such a hilarious picture to my mind that I almost fell off my chair.  It would be a great satire to have a judge sitting in a courtroom, confused with neon signs saying this way to justice.  Follow the yellow neon signs and all the children that they had allowed to slip through the cracks singing, "Follow, follow, follow follow, follow the yellow neon signs."

Anyhow, I lived it but you live it far more often.  They falsified records, told outright lies, the judge (or hearing officer who is really a lawyer who works in their agency) actually was answering for the state's witness to my attorney's examination and grabbing evidence out of his hands and sitting on it.  I had four lawyers and my Orthodox priest in the audience of the courtroom who were waiting to testify as character witnesses for me.  We all couldn't believe the kangaroo court and I have to admit, at times, I actually laugh about it.  However, I now realize that even though their agency regulation read very succintly that they were to pursue the records I held on minor children, and we had, via a subpoena and a FOI request the actual handwritten copy of her copying my records, she sat on the stand and replied to the question "are you allowed to copy records on minor children according to your regulation # blah blah blah, she said we are allowed to review them!  Huh!  since when does Webster say review and copy have the same meaning!!

It was one of the most bizzare experiences of my life and I shall never forget it but I see now, very clearly, it has to be that way because they are shaping the record so that all future appeals will be based on the prejudice shaped facts the way they interpret it.

So, I guess my question to you GAH is that once you step into that hearing, you are locked into a system that is all for them and none for you.  How, can we avoid that first fair hearing so that they cannot get any evidence.  How do we avoid any interviews, any psych evaluations by their paid court whores and use our own doctors, our own psychologists and our own hand picked temporary guardians for foster care?

effie
 

----- Original Message -----

From: Gregory A. Hession
To: AFRA_CenCom@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 5:03 PM
Subject: [AFRA_CenCom] Criminal v. Civil

Hello.

         Regarding the difference between civil and criminal matters, the problem is getting far more obscured than you describe.  In a civil investigation by CPS, if they have reason to believe that a criminal matter MAY have happened, they will often bring in the police and the District Attorney to sniff around.  They then all work in collusion.  The CPS agent is often used by the police or DA to get info without proper Miranda warnings.  They can do this by threats to take children if they don't get cooperation. 

         As to the actual trials of termination of parental rights, they allow double triple octuple hearsay all the time, through court investigator reports, social worker reports of what someone said the parent said the child said to someone, and the like.  My experience in many Massachusetts trials is that the Juvenile judges wouldn't know the rules of evidence or the rules of procedure if they fell on the bench with a neon sign and a big red pointy arrow blinking to show them what it was.  They are very sheltered, in secret courtrooms, and often only did this type of case themselves, so don't know how real law should work. They find nothing rotten or unreliable in using this type of testimony. 

         Further, the whole thrust of modern lawmaking is to deliberately create offenses that are neither criminal or civil, so that they can escape providing traditional protections for the accused.  These can usually be called "crimes against the state" such as licensing issues or possession crimes, (i.e. of guns or drugs), domestic restraining order issues, environmental laws, regulation of professions, all sorts of administrative schemes, and so forth.  All are in a murky middle ground where the state can crush and bully violators with impunity.   Juvenile law may be the most significant and egregious category of such wrongdoing, because it has such outsized consequences.

         In sum, we have a long way to go get to the point where the statists in government are going to re-institute traditional protection for offenders in these new classes of offenses against the state.  They like it that way.  I am convinced if we were putting together our government structure from scratch today, we would get almost none of the few remaining protections from government tyranny we now enjoy.  The current regimes want to mow down any resistance to their total control of families, and stamp out any independent thought crimes that run counter to government hegemony.

Best regards,

Gregory A. Hession J.D.



At 11:18 AM 3/14/2004, you wrote:
Lots of time the social worker will allege and make up information on what the child has said or didn't say but you are unable to cross examine that witness or accuser.  The court is clearly saying if you are accused of the crime of abuse or neglect (because that is what abuse and neglect is), you have the right to question the witness or accuser.  Abuse and/or neglect is not a civil matter and that was brought out in Walsh v. Erie County.   If the matter was truly a civil matter, the police lack all jurisdiction and are prohibited by law to get involved in civil matters.  If it is a civil matter, CPS lacks the jurisdiction as a government official to enter your home and question you or your child.  From the moment the report of the CRIMINAL act of abuse or neglect comes in, the investigation is totally a criminal one to see if the crime alleged is true or not true.
 
If you read my handbook with over 100 case law, the federal courts clearly from their point of view look at it and have ruled on the criminality of it.  CPS has a very exaggerated view of their power and in fact abuses their power.  When you subject to the 4th and 14th amendment, you are involved in constitutional protections afforded all parents and children.  When you seize children, it is because you believe a criminal act has been committed against a child.  CPS as well as the police are all involve in "public safety" as "government officials" those by definition once again a crime has been committed or one was alleged to take place.
 
All of what CPS does is oriented on and around is whether a crime has been committed.  Police by statute are to protect every one, CPS on the other hand are by statute to protect a segment of the population compared to the police.  CPS officials by definition are law enforcement officers.  They do not carry a gun or badge but enforce the law empower to them from the legislative and executive branch of government.
 
This is one of the biggest hurdles we are attempting to do, educate people. 
 
Connecticut DCF Watch
 
(WE ARE NOT ATTORNEYS NOR DO WE PRETEND TO BE OR OFFER ANY LEGAL ADVICE.  ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL IS FOR YOUR REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION ONLY.  IF YOU CHOOSE TO REPRESENT YOURSELF, YOU DO SO BY YOUR OWN CHOICE AND CONVICTIONS.  WE ONLY OFFER UP AN OPINION FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW.  WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DECISIONS YOU CHOOSE TO MAKE OR FAIL TO MAKE.)
----- Original Message -----
From: DeanTong@aol.com
To: 
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Supreme court ruled on 6th amendment, thousands of DCF/CPS ...

Feel free to inquire of any criminal attorney affiliated with NACDL (National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers). The Crawford v. Washington case is similar to Michaels v. N.J. and/or Delbridge v. PA relative to Taint Hearings. The 6th Amendment right to confrontation applies to criminal defendants in criminal courts of law. While the case "may" have some impact in juvenile - dependency cases (hearings and/or trials), I doubt it, because the legal standard of proof is much lower (51% or 75%), and in my professional opinion hearsay from therapists, social workers, et al, will still be admitted in same.

 

 

 

 
In a message dated 3/14/2004 10:45:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, ctdcfwatch@snet.net writes:
You would  be correct if the opposite wasn't true.  CPS workers are "government officials" and subject to the constitution as in the 4th and 14th Amendments.  Cases involving CPS are criminal as ruled in U.S. Circuit courts.  CPS lies and say it is a civil or administrative procedure in attempts to circumvent your rights.  Everything they do is to determine if their should terminate your constitutional rights as a family.  The government officials can not pick and choose what amendments they can violate.

 
CPS will lose in the higher courts on appeal who have to comply with the 6th amendment regarding the confrontational clause.  If you are alleged to commit the criminal act of abuse or neglect, that automatically triggers your constitutional rights.  Show my in the constitution where CPS can violate citizens right where the police have to.  You won't.  The court ruled that ALL government officials are subject to the constitution.

 


Dean Tong, Forensic Consultant
10246 Hunters Haven Blvd.
Riverview, FL 33569
813.671.4190, Ph/Fax
813.417.5362, Cell
813.278.8356, National Pager
800.854.0735, Book/Interview Hotline
DeanTong@aol.com, E-Mail
abuse-excuse.com, Website

Please note the contents contained in this email are opinion only and are not to be construed as legal advice in any way. If there is any doubt about the contents of this email, please seek the advice of a licensed attorney through your local Bar Association.