winona rosa

Monday, February 28, 2011

CPS violates these EVERY CASE

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights

Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 241

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.


Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 242

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.


Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245
Federally Protected Activities

Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 245

1) This statute prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference, or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person or class of persons because of their activity as:

a) A voter, or person qualifying to vote...;

b) a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States;

c) an applicant for federal employment or an employee by the federal government;

d) a juror or prospective juror in federal court; and

e) a participant in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

2) Prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin and because of his/her activity as:

a) A student or applicant for admission to any public school or public College;

b) a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by a state or local government;

c) an applicant for private or state employment, private or state employee; a member or applicant for membership in any labor organization or hiring hall; or an applicant for employment through any employment agency, labor organization or hiring hall;

d) a juror or prospective juror in state court;

e) a traveler or user of any facility of interstate commerce or common carrier; or

f) a patron of any public accommodation, including hotels, motels, restaurants, lunchrooms, bars, gas stations, theaters...or any other establishment which serves the public and which is principally engaged in selling food or beverages for consumption on the premises.

3) Prohibits interference by force or threat of force against any person because he/she is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or class of persons from participating or affording others the opportunity or protection to so participate, or lawfully aiding or encouraging other persons to participate in any of the benefits or activities listed in items (1) and (2), above without discrimination as to race, color, religion, or national origin.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life or may be sentenced to death.


Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001
Fraud and False Statements

United States Code
U.S. Code as of: 01/02/01

Section 1001. Statements or entries generally
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

18 USC Sec. 1203
Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 1203


(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third person or a governmental organization to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the person detained, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life and, if the death of any person results, shall be punished by death or life imprisonment.


U.S. Code as of: 01/02/01

Section 2234. Authority exceeded in executing warrant

Whoever, in executing a search warrant, willfully exceeds his authority or exercises it with unnecessary severity, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year. U.S. Code as of: 01/02/01

Section 2235. Search warrant procured maliciously Whoever maliciously and without probable cause procures a search warrant to be issued and executed, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year.

Section 2236. Searches without warrant

Whoever, being an officer, agent, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, engaged in the enforcement of any law of the United States, searches any private dwelling used and occupied as such dwelling without a warrant directing such search, or maliciously and without reasonable cause searches any other building or property without a search warrant, shall be fined for a first offense not more than $1,000; and, for a subsequent offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

This section shall not apply to any person -
(a) serving a warrant of arrest; or
(b) arresting or attempting to arrest a person committing or
attempting to commit an offense in his presence, or who has
committed or is suspected on reasonable grounds of having
committed a felony; or
(c) making a search at the request or invitation or with the
consent of the occupant of the premises.

More on Section 2236


Title 42 USC Section 1983

Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 42 : Section 1983
Sec. 1983. - Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia

Title 42 USC Section 1983 Information


Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141
Pattern and Practice

Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 42 : Section 14141

This civil statute was a provision within the Crime Control Act of 1994 and makes it unlawful for any governmental authority, or agent thereof, or any person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred, the Attorney General, for or in the name of the United States, may in a civil action obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.

Types of misconduct covered include, among other things:

1. Excessive Force
2. Discriminatory Harassment
3. False Arrest
4. Coercive Sexual Conduct
5. Unlawful Stops, Searches, or Arrests

FRAUD United States Code

Section 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding. (OK for system to lie?)

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to -

(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04

Section 671. State plan for foster care and adoption assistance

(a) Requisite features of State plan

In order for a State to be eligible for payments under this part, it shall have a plan approved by the Secretary which -

(1) provides for foster care maintenance payments in accordance with section 672 of this title and for adoption assistance in accordance with section 673 of this title;

(2) provides that the State agency responsible for administering the program authorized by subpart 1 of part B of this subchapter shall administer, or supervise the administration of, the program authorized by this part;

(3) provides that the plan shall be in effect in all political subdivisions of the State, and, if administered by them, be mandatory upon them;

(4) provides that the State shall assure that the programs at the local level assisted under this part will be coordinated with the programs at the State or local level assisted under parts A and B of this subchapter, under subchapter XX of this chapter, and under any other appropriate provision of Federal law;

(5) provides that the State will, in the administration of its programs under this part, use such methods relating to the establishment and maintenance of personnel standards on a merit basis as are found by the Secretary to be necessary for the proper and efficient operation of the programs, except that the Secretary shall exercise no authority with respect to the selection, tenure of office, or compensation of any individual employed in accordance with such methods;

(6) provides that the State agency referred to in paragraph (2) (hereinafter in this part referred to as the "State agency") will make such reports, in such form and containing such information as the Secretary may from time to time require, and comply with such provisions as the Secretary may from time to time find necessary to assure the correctness and verification of such reports;

(7) provides that the State agency will monitor and conduct periodic evaluations of activities carried out under this part;

(8) provides safeguards which restrict the use of or disclosure of information concerning individuals assisted under the State plan to purposes directly connected with

(A) the administration of the plan of the State approved under this part, the plan or program of the State under part A, B, or D of this subchapter or under subchapter I, V, X, XIV, XVI (as in effect in Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands), XIX, or XX of this chapter, or the supplemental security income program established by subchapter XVI of this chapter,

(B) any investigation, prosecution, or criminal or civil proceeding, conducted in connection with the administration of any such plan or program,

(C) the administration of any other Federal or federally assisted program which provides assistance, in cash or in kind, or services, directly to individuals on the basis of need,

(D) any audit or similar activity conducted in connection with the administration of any such plan or program by any governmental agency which is authorized by law to conduct such audit or activity, and

(E) reporting and providing information pursuant to paragraph (9) to appropriate authorities with respect to known or suspected child abuse or neglect; and the safeguards so provided shall prohibit disclosure, to any committee or legislative body (other than an agency referred to in clause (D) with respect to an activity referred to in such clause), of any information which identifies by name or address any such applicant or recipient; except that nothing contained herein shall preclude a State from providing standards which restrict disclosures to purposes more limited than those specified herein, or which, in the case of adoptions, prevent disclosure entirely;

(9) provides that the State agency will -

(A) report to an appropriate agency or official, known or suspected instances of physical or mental injury, sexual abuse or exploitation, or negligent treatment or maltreatment of a child receiving aid under part B of this subchapter or this part under circumstances which indicate that the child's health or welfare is threatened thereby; and

(B) provide such information with respect to a situation described in subparagraph (A) as the State agency may have;

(10) provides for the establishment or designation of a State authority or authorities which shall be responsible for establishing and maintaining standards for foster family homes and child care institutions which are reasonably in accord with recommended standards of national organizations concerned with standards for such institutions or homes, including standards related to admission policies, safety, sanitation, and protection of civil rights, and provides that the standards so established shall be applied by the State to any foster family home or child care institution receiving funds under this part or part B of this subchapter;

(11) provides for periodic review of the standards referred to in the preceding paragraph and amounts paid as foster care maintenance payments and adoption assistance to assure their continuing appropriateness;

(12) provides for granting an opportunity for a fair hearing before the State agency to any individual whose claim for benefits available pursuant to this part is denied or is not acted upon with reasonable promptness;

(13) provides that the State shall arrange for a periodic and independently conducted audit of the programs assisted under this part and part B of this subchapter, which shall be conducted no less frequently than once every three years;

(14) provides

(A) specific goals (which shall be established by State law on or before October 1, 1982) for each fiscal year (commencing with the fiscal year which begins on October 1, 1983) as to the maximum number of children (in absolute numbers or as a percentage of all children in foster care with respect to whom assistance under the plan is provided during such year) who, at any time during such year, will remain in foster care after having been in such care for a period in excess of twenty-four months, and

(B) a description of the steps which will be taken by the State to achieve such goals;

(15) provides that -

(A) in determining reasonable efforts to be made with respect to a child, as described in this paragraph, and in making such reasonable efforts, the child's health and safety shall be the paramount concern;

(B) except as provided in subparagraph (D), reasonable efforts shall be made to preserve and reunify families -

(i) prior to the placement of a child in foster care, to prevent or eliminate the need for removing the child from the child's home; and

(ii) to make it possible for a child to safely return to the child's home;

(C) if continuation of reasonable efforts of the type described in subparagraph (B) is determined to be inconsistent with the permanency plan for the child, reasonable efforts shall be made to place the child in a timely manner in accordance with the permanency plan, and to complete whatever steps are necessary to finalize the permanent placement of the child;

(D) reasonable efforts of the type described in subparagraph (B) shall not be required to be made with respect to a parent of a child if a court of competent jurisdiction has determined that -

(i) the parent has subjected the child to aggravated circumstances (as defined in State law, which definition may include but need not be limited to abandonment, torture, chronic abuse, and sexual abuse);

(ii) the parent has -

(I) committed murder (which would have been an offense under section 1111(a) of title 18, if the offense had occurred in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States) of another child of the parent;

(II) committed voluntary manslaughter (which would have been an offense under section 1112(a) of title 18, if the offense had occurred in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States) of another child of the parent;

(III) aided or abetted, attempted, conspired, or solicited to commit such a murder or such a voluntary manslaughter; or

(IV) committed a felony assault that results in serious bodily injury to the child or another child of the parent; or

(iii) the parental rights of the parent to a sibling have been terminated involuntarily;

(E) if reasonable efforts of the type described in subparagraph (B) are not made with respect to a child as a result of a determination made by a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with subparagraph (D) -

(i) a permanency hearing (as described in section 675(5)(C) of this title) shall be held for the child within 30 days after the determination; and

(ii) reasonable efforts shall be made to place the child in a timely manner in accordance with the permanency plan, and to complete whatever steps are necessary to finalize the permanent placement of the child; and

(F) reasonable efforts to place a child for adoption or with a legal guardian may be made concurrently with reasonable efforts of the type described in subparagraph (B);

(16) provides for the development of a case plan (as defined in section 675(1) of this title) for each child receiving foster care maintenance payments under the State plan and provides for a case review system which meets the requirements described in section 675(5)(B) of this title with respect to each such child;

(17) provides that, where appropriate, all steps will be taken, including cooperative efforts with the State agencies administering the program funded under part A of this subchapter and plan approved under part D of this subchapter, to secure an assignment to the State of any rights to support on behalf of each child receiving foster care maintenance payments under this part;

(18) not later than January 1, 1997, provides that neither the State nor any other entity in the State that receives funds from the Federal Government and is involved in adoption or foster care placements may -

(A) deny to any person the opportunity to become an adoptive or a foster parent, on the basis of the race, color, or national origin of the person, or of the child, involved; or

(B) delay or deny the placement of a child for adoption or into foster care, on the basis of the race, color, or national origin of the adoptive or foster parent, or the child, involved;

(19) provides that the State shall consider giving preference to an adult relative over a non-related caregiver when determining a placement for a child, provided that the relative caregiver meets all relevant State child protection standards;

(20)(A) unless an election provided for in subparagraph (B) is made with respect to the State, provides procedures for criminal records checks for any prospective foster or adoptive parent before the foster or adoptive parent may be finally approved for placement of a child on whose behalf foster care maintenance payments or adoption assistance payments are to be made under the State plan under this part, including procedures requiring that -

(i) in any case in which a record check reveals a felony conviction for child abuse or neglect, for spousal abuse, for a crime against children (including child pornography), or for a crime involving violence, including rape, sexual assault, or homicide, but not including other physical assault or battery, if a State finds that a court of competent jurisdiction has determined that the felony was committed at any time, such final approval shall not be granted; and

(ii) in any case in which a record check reveals a felony conviction for physical assault, battery, or a drug-related offense, if a State finds that a court of competent jurisdiction has determined that the felony was committed within the past 5 years, such final approval shall not be granted; and

(B) subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a State plan if the Governor of the State has notified the Secretary in writing that the State has elected to make subparagraph (A) inapplicable to the State, or if the State legislature, by law, has elected to make subparagraph (A) inapplicable to the State;

(21) provides for health insurance coverage (including, at State option, through the program under the State plan approved under subchapter XIX of this chapter) for any child who has been determined to be a child with special needs, for whom there is in effect an adoption assistance agreement (other than an agreement under this part) between the State and an adoptive parent or parents, and who the State has determined cannot be placed with an adoptive parent or parents without medical assistance because such child has special needs for medical, mental health, or rehabilitative care, and that with respect to the provision of such health insurance coverage -

(A) such coverage may be provided through 1 or more State medical assistance programs;

(B) the State, in providing such coverage, shall ensure that the medical benefits, including mental health benefits, provided are of the same type and kind as those that would be provided for children by the State under subchapter XIX of this chapter;

(C) in the event that the State provides such coverage through a State medical assistance program other than the program under subchapter XIX of this chapter, and the State exceeds its funding for services under such other program, any such child shall be deemed to be receiving aid or assistance under the State plan under this part for purposes of section 1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)(I) of this title; and

(D) in determining cost-sharing requirements, the State shall take into consideration the circumstances of the adopting parent or parents and the needs of the child being adopted consistent, to the extent coverage is provided through a State medical assistance program, with the rules under such program;

(22) provides that, not later than January 1, 1999, the State shall develop and implement standards to ensure that children in foster care placements in public or private agencies are provided quality services that protect the safety and health of the children;

(23) provides that the State shall not -

(A) deny or delay the placement of a child for adoption when an approved family is available outside of the jurisdiction with responsibility for handling the case of the child; or

(B) fail to grant an opportunity for a fair hearing, as described in paragraph (12), to an individual whose allegation of a violation of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph is denied by the State or not acted upon by the State with reasonable promptness; and

(24) include (!1) a certification that, before a child in foster care under the responsibility of the State is placed with prospective foster parents, the prospective foster parents will be prepared adequately with the appropriate knowledge and skills to provide for the needs of the child, and that such preparation will be continued, as necessary, after the placement of the child.

(b) Approval of plan by Secretary

The Secretary shall approve any plan which complies with the provisions of subsection (a) of this section.

Print one of these up and keep it handy it for future use-

Saturday, February 26, 2011

A former caseworker for the child protection agency in NY describes how the agency really works

Taking Liberties - Former Social Worker Report

A former caseworker for the child protection agency in NY describes how the agency really works

She thought she was hired to protect children. But instead, a city child abuse investigator discovered that betraying her clients was part of her job description. Tales from a year inside the Administration for Children's Services.

By Akka Gordon
Source: City Limits MAGAZINE

Emergency Children's Services is an inconspicuous, dingy building at the southern edge of Soho. About 30 to 40 kids come here each night, after they are taken away from their parents and while they're waiting for a foster home to take them in. When they get here, they cry, fight or sit silently on a stained couch, eyes glazed over. As an investigator for the New York City Administration for Children's Services, I spent many nights here.When children first arrive at ECS they are taken through a metal detector by security. Some carry garbage bags containing their clothes; others tightly clutch just the one item they brought from home. Each is accompanied by an ACS child protective caseworker, who is given a number and waits to be called to check the kids in. On a busy night, of which there are many, this can take hours.

In the waiting room, some tattered old books and the odd toy lie about. A green banner hangs year round saying, "Seasons Greetings From Pre-Placement" and does little to conceal the cracking paint. The children hungrily eye a vending machine in the corner and beg their caseworkers for candy. And the caseworkers say, No way.

Some of these kids, who range from newborn babies to 17-year-olds, have been rescued from seriously abusive or neglectful parents. Others are here for reasons that are ambiguous, unjustified, even arbitrary. But they all come to the same dim room on Laight Street. And because the city's Administration for Children's Services has identified them as children in danger, this is the first of many unfamiliar places they'll be seeing as they journey through the city's foster care system.

Like me, the other caseworkers here are exhausted. Most of them are on the phone or stare up at the television hung from the wall. It is not part of the job to comfort the children just plucked from their homes. They are irritated and want to get home.

When I first started coming to ECS, I tried to reach out to all the children who were crying or sitting alone, shocked and terrified. It was easier with the little ones, because I could hug them and they would immediately respond. But the older ones were different. I asked them, "Do you know why you are here?" Chances were that they had only a vague idea; ACS investigators often do not tell the children they are removing exactly what is going on. Most of the time the kids shrugged and said, "I don't know." Or they knew pieces, like, "Because mommy didn't clean the house." Often it was, "Because mommy got arrested."
The more I ended up at ECS, the harder it became to comfort these children. When you had no idea where a child was going to end up that night, it was impossible to assure them of anything. When a child asks, "Am I going to get split up from my little brother?" you can't say no. Although all efforts are supposed to be made to place siblings together, there are countless exceptions. Instead you have to say, "Let's hope not, okay?"

One night I was at ECS with a 3-year-old named Christopher, whom I had picked up from a precinct in East Harlem. His mother was arrested that day on drug charges. He had been living in a crack house, according to the police who took him, and his arms and legs were caked with dirt. All he had with him was a pacifier and a scarf. I pulled the pacifier out of his mouth and asked him, "Are you going to talk to me?" He looked at me and said, "Fuck off." Other than this, he didn't speak.
In the waiting room he pulled a chair out from under a girl his age as she went to sit down. After she fell, crying, he jumped up and down, pointing and laughing at her. I tried to engage him, to keep Christopher from terrorizing the other children. Then another caseworker came in. He lifted him by one arm and shouted in his face, "Listen, you brat. You better sit down and SHUT UP." He tossed Christopher onto the couch and he bounced, landing on his head. The caseworker warned, "Don't even think about moving. I'm watching you." Christopher did not move or even cry. He looked at me for help.

The caseworker explained to me defensively, "That's the only way these kids listen. That's how they are treated at home, so that's the only way to get through to them." And I wondered, silently: If we aren't treating these children any better than they were treated in their homes, then what are we doing?

To the manager at ACS who makes the fateful decision to remove a child, and to the judge who approves it, a child exists on a piece of paper, alongside a list of disturbing circumstances. They don't see a child having a panic attack at 3 a.m. because he is suddenly alone in the world. Or slamming his head against a wall out of protest and desperation. The good intentions that go into the decision to remove a child often have little to do with the sometimes brutal outcomes of that choice. And the problem is not simply caseworkers who do not know how to talk to children. The whole system does not treat children with dignity and respect.

Usually, the kids fell asleep in my lap during the car rides to their new foster homes. But Christopher stayed awake all the way to his new home in Staten Island, until 3 a.m. He stared out the car window and watched Manhattan recede in the distance. He seemed to know exactly what was happening, like an adult trapped in a little body that couldn't speak. But when I finally had to leave him, he did what any 3-year-old would do in the face of abandonment. He clung for his life to my leg.
When I graduated from college two years ago, I decided to become a caseworker for ACS. I wanted to learn how child welfare policy affects children and their families--not from reports and data, but on the front lines.
It may seem hard to imagine now, but in many ways I loved my job and had no plans to do anything else. As a caseworker, I was in a unique position to advocate for children and parents when they most needed help. Many of the parents and children I encountered made deep impressions on me, and I established close connections with some of them. I also enjoyed the investigative aspect of the job, the thrill of constantly going into unknown situations. At first, I saw it as a daily adventure.

But it did not take long for me to see that there was no adventure here. Many of these families were harassed, their rights systematically violated by ACS. Their children were being swallowed up by an agency that too often operated on virtually unchecked authority, wielded arbitrarily. And I represented that agency.
More and more, I felt that I could not do the job I believed I needed to do with an ACS badge around my neck. I resigned from the agency in October 1999, after working there for just over a year. After all that I had experienced, I felt, like many of my clients, crippled by feelings of powerlessness. At the time, the only thing I could do was write it all down.

In the year I worked there, the Administration for Children's Services investigated more than 50,000 reports of child abuse and neglect. I handled about 50 of them in my job as a child protective caseworker in the Manhattan field office. I went all over the city investigating cases--to housing projects, family shelters and, once, to an apartment where a father had made a robot for his kids out of old Metrocards. But except for the time I visited a family on the Upper West Side--who hired their own doctors to disprove ACS's allegations of child abuse--my work took me to low-income neighborhoods. The reality is that families who are likely to be reported to ACS are poor.

When I first started the job, my supervisor explained to me that bad caseworkers sympathize with the parents. "Being sentimental," he said, "is the worst way to be." If you relate to the parent, the wisdom goes, you cannot conduct an objective investigation.

The entire investigation process relies on the assumption that parents do not know their rights, starting with the moment they allow caseworkers to come into their homes. A lot of these families are so conditioned to caseworkers knocking on their doors that the presence of a city worker in their homes is just another part of life. Nearly half a million New York City children have been the subjects of ACS investigations. If you are poor and if you have had problems with the law, if you have ever been involved in a domestic violence dispute, if you took your child to the emergency room after an accident, if you have ever used drugs, if your children have problems in school, if you have ever been homeless, ACS has been a part of your life.

Child protective specialists get about two to three new cases each week, sent to them by their supervisors. Those supervisors have their own supervisors, called managers. It's managers who sign off on the big decisions: whether a case is worth pursuing and, most critically, when to put children into foster care.
For a caseworker, each case represents a heavy set of tasks and responsibilities. First, unless the call was anonymous, she must contact the source of the report. Many calls come from professionals required by law to report suspected abuse or neglect, such as teachers, guidance counselors and hospital social workers. Other people call in reports, too, especially neighbors and family members. But many of these reports turn out to be false, and some of them are made purely for revenge.

Within 24 hours of a report, the caseworker has to visit the family at home. Caseworkers must interview each child and examine them all for marks and bruises. They must also interview every other member of the household, check every room for safety, check refrigerators and cabinets for food. Immunization records, birth certificates and proof of income must be verified. Next, caseworkers contact the children's schools and doctors. And in cases that involve drug allegations, the caseworker must accompany the parent to a drug test.

At any point during the investigation, a manager can order children to be removed from their homes if it is determined that their lives are at risk. But under state law and ACS policy, removals are supposed to be a last resort. As an alternative, the agency offers a menu of services to help families deal with problems; counseling, parenting classes, drug treatment and housekeeping services are the most typical.

These investigations and interventions save children's lives and protect their well-being all the time. Caseworkers are trained to look beneath the surface, to not trust a parent's statement without evidence and to compile as much information about a family as possible. Caseworkers and their supervisors are accountable for each case; the days when cases piled up on desks without anyone contacting a family are long over.

But accountability, at ACS, is a one-way street. A manager or supervisor has no one to answer to if a child who shouldn't be in foster care is removed from home anyway. There is no penalty for the wrongful taking of a child. And the pressures to remove are intense. I was trained to do removals in cases that did not necessarily qualify as abuse or neglect because, as one of my supervisors reminded me, "prevention is better than a cure." When I was resistant to doing a removal on a case, that same supervisor's advice was, "It's better to be safe than sorry." And at moments of uncertainty, the mantra was "Cover your ass"--a phrase heard often around the office. It was backed up by a pervasive fear--among caseworkers, supervisors, managers and attorneys--of seeing our photograph in the Daily News as the person who made an error that was literally fatal.

Caseworkers, usually the only people who have had direct contact with a family, don't have much to say in the decision-making process. Managers generally think of them as being incapable of giving meaningful recommendations. One week after the investigation begins, caseworkers have to file an electronic report. The computer offers two options: "safe" and "unsafe." But my manager accepted only one. Any time I determined a child to be "safe," my manager rejected it and returned it to me. The first step to protect yourself, I quickly discovered, is to determine that a child is "unsafe" from the outset of an investigation.

In my division, if the allegations were bad enough--and especially if they came from a teacher, doctor, or other professional required by law to report suspected abuse or neglect--our manager considered them to be absolute truth. Virtually every time, if a caseworker could not find evidence to prove that the allegations were unfounded, the manager would refuse to sign off on a case, clearing it from our ever-growing caseloads, until we marked it "indicated" in the computer system. Indicated means that ACS has found credible evidence that abuse or neglect has taken place.

Our manager indicated a case in which an 18-year-old mother was mistakenly picked up in a drug sweep and immediately released. The same woman had been indicated in an earlier investigation, after hot tea spilled on her child at a family shelter, even though the social worker whose tea it was witnessed that it was an accident. Still, the manager decided that this previous incident--along with a robbery conviction and marijuana use before the child was born--was reason enough to indicate the new case.

Throughout ACS, the proportion of cases that end up labeled indicated has jumped from 26 percent in 1994 to nearly 40 percent in 1998. From a manager's point of view, indicating cases gives them the legal leverage they need to order a removal at any given time. For a parent, it also means something else: Having an indicated case on her record means that she cannot adopt a child, become a foster parent or work with children in any capacity.

From there, the decision to remove is entirely up to the manager. By law, children are supposed to be removed only if their physical or emotional health has been harmed or they are in immediate danger or being hurt as a result of a parent's failure to "exercise a minimum degree of care." In practice, that can mean anything from a parent failing to show up for parenting classes to sending her child to the hospital with a broken limb. But sometimes children are removed for reasons the caseworkers themselves cannot fathom.
On the night I met a client I'll call Louise at the homeless shelter where she lived, she told me her 11-day-old son, Kevin, was born without drugs in his body. That she prayed to God and he gave her another chance. And that she got clean on her own, without any program. I asked her about her other children and she told me what I already knew: She had given birth to five children who were all taken away from her while she was still in the hospital because each time she tested positive for crack.

Back at the office, my manager ordered me to remove Kevin. My manager, like most of her colleagues, did not go for the "life transformation" stuff. It did not matter that all of Louise's drug tests had been clean for the past two years. The manager called it a straight case of neglect, since the woman's other children had all been taken from her. Besides, my manager reminded me, Louise is taking heavy psychotropic medication.

Before going to court, we received a letter written by Louise's psychiatrist, whom she had seen regularly for the past year. He wrote:

I remember thinking in her case no medication and certainly no therapy had been able to have the effect on her that her new child has had on her....The effect of the role of motherhood on her has defined her and given her grounding. It is our social and moral responsibility to support [Louise] in functioning as a mother. It is clear that [Louise] is ill. However, it is my assessment, in accord with all other senior clinicians [here], that [Louise] poses no immediate threat to her child.
My manager didn't see things the same way, and she made me file the case in court. "If we can't get a neglect finding on this mother, I might as well go work for the Parks Department," she told me. When ACS's attorneys initially wouldn't accept the case, she emailed the head of the legal division. And while I was away at a three-day training, she finally managed to get Kevin into foster care. Louise had stayed overnight with Kevin's father that week after she missed curfew at her shelter, and my manager had found an old order of protection against him--evidence of domestic violence. Louise was nailed with "failure to protect" Kevin from this potentially dangerous man.

(Only later did Louise tell me that she did not really have a history of domestic violence; she made it up a few years ago since she knew it was the only way she could qualify for emergency housing. I explained to her that it was the only reason ACS was able to take Kevin. "Well, what would you have done?" she asked me.)

In Family Court, Louise spoke up for herself, because her attorney did not. She argued her case herself and, with the help of testimony from her psychiatric nurse, won the judge over. Louise got Kevin back on the condition that she secure housing, submit to drug tests, continue to see her psychiatrist and comply with ACS supervision.

The ability to return a child to his or her parent is one of the few rewards of a caseworker's job. After picking up Kevin from his foster care agency in Queens, I sat with him in the Emergency Assistance Unit, the city's dispatch center for homeless families, waiting for his mother to arrive. The waiting room was filled with mothers and crying kids. A little girl came in the waiting area and asked the lady behind the counter for a piece of paper. "No paper," was the curt reply. I told the girl to come over to where I was sitting. My hands were full because I was feeding Kevin, but I told her that she could rip some pages out of my notebook. She stood there and tore out about 30 pages, one at a time. Every few moments she looked up at me waiting for me to say no. I just smiled at her. "That your baby?" she asked me.

"No," I told her.
"You homeless?"
I shook my head.
"You took that baby, didn't you?" she asked.
"I'm giving him back."
"Yeah, you better," she warned.
In my year at ACS, I was lucky to see only a few children who were severely abused and neglected. I did see bruises, belt marks and burns on kids. I saw dirty and hungry children. I saw a baby with cockroaches crawling in her crib. There were kids who had never been to school. I had to ask a kindergartner if her father put his penis in her mouth. I sat in the back of an ambulance with a 9-year-old boy lying on a stretcher who had been beaten up by his mother with a baseball bat. He clutched his HIP card, his only possession now, in his swollen hand. I had a 3-year-old child whose mother forced him to stay awake for four days and three nights because she thought he was possessed by a ghost and would die if he fell asleep. And I met some parents who were dangerous not just to their children, but to me. I had to get an order of protection for myself against one, and was warned by another that I was going to be killed by the Bloods outside Family Court. But all this is what I expected from the job. In a strange way, these really horrible cases turned out to be the easy ones. It was the cases that weren't so clear-cut that kept me up at night. I saw removals occur when parents were accused of failing to follow up with a preventive service program or counseling. Breaking rules at shelters. Using or selling marijuana, or not sending their children to school. Failure-to-protect cases were common. One time, I removed a child from a mother accused of neglecting her infant son when she was hospitalized after a suicide attempt. It turned out the child was not yet even born when the suicide attempt occurred.
I worried about what I would do if my manager ordered me to remove. I worried about making mistakes myself.

Two nights before Christmas 1998, I removed two children who I still believe should not have been taken from their home. I had been a caseworker at ACS for two months.At the last minute, my supervisor instructed me to accompany an even greener coworker on a case I knew nothing about. On the way up the FDR, in the back of the city car, my colleague, Theresa, described the case to me. The children were to be removed because their 82-year-old great-grandmother, Ms. Ruth Jackson, was too old to care for them. Owen, 5, and Carla, 14, were in Ms. Jackson's legal custody, because their mother and grandmother were both absent, allegedly because of drug use.
According to the allegations from an after-school program she attended, Carla had recently slashed a girl in the face with a pocketknife at school and was beyond the great-grandmother's control. Theresa told me Ms. Jackson had medical problems, including high blood pressure, diabetes and glaucoma. Due to her "failing health," our supervisor believed that she was not an appropriate caretaker for the children. The supervisor instructed Theresa to ask the great-grandmother to sign a form that would voluntarily place the children in ACS's custody. Theresa told me that she was instructed to call the police and remove the children only if the woman refused to sign the form. Our supervisor had informed Theresa that a refusal to sign would constitute neglect, because Ms. Jackson would not be complying with the best interests of the children.

"I don't believe that this is the right thing," Theresa complained to me. "The great-grandmother hasn't done anything wrong, and her health seems fine." I was furious at her for not telling me any of this before we left. I knew the options a family could be offered in a time of stress. A removal was to be done only in an emergency.

When we arrived, Ms. Jackson looked at us suspiciously and seemed reluctant to let us in. Decorated for Christmas, the apartment smelled like greasy chicken. It was 9 at night.

She instructed the children to go to their rooms. She sat on the sagging couch and asked, "What can I do for you ladies tonight?" She looked a little frail but seemed strong-willed.

I sat in the corner by the Christmas tree while Theresa tried to explain about the voluntary form. "You are old and you have so many health problems," she told Ms. Jackson unconvincingly. "Who will take care of the children if something should happen to you?"

Ms. Jackson said, "Ain't nothing happening to me. What if something happens to you?"
Theresa tried again. "It's not safe for the children to be living with you because you are too old to care for them properly and look after them." She looked at the floor as she said this, her voice shaking.
"What're you saying, miss? These children are not going anywhere. Nobody in this house is too old. I raised them kids since they were babies. The court gave me these children and nobody's going to take them away from me."
"My supervisor said that..."
"My supervisor"
"Your what?"
"My supervisor. He wants you to sign this voluntary form so that the children will be safe." She placed the blank form on the coffee table.

"I don't know much about your supervisor, but nobody's signing these kids to them foster people. It's Christmas. Did you know that, dear?"After about 15 minutes of this, Theresa signaled me to call the police. Out in the hallway I called 911, then went back into the apartment to wait for the cops.
Ms. Jackson had no idea they were coming. "Who would want to take these children?" she asked us. "It's Christmas. These children are happy. I take these children to school every day. I make sure they have everything they need to get along fine." The cops banged on the door. "Who's that?" asked Ms. Jackson. "That your supervisor?"

I answered the door. Two cops stood around and did not say much. Theresa started crying, and everything fell into my hands. I explained to Ms. Jackson that the children were coming with us tonight and that she would have to come to court tomorrow to get them back. I had packed kids up quickly once before, so I braced myself to do it again.

The kids were watching The Brady Bunch, lying with their feet up on their great-grandmother's bed. I introduced myself and told Carla to pack up some clothes for herself and her brother. She looked at me as if the prospect of leaving might be exciting for a second. Owen wanted to know if "grandma" was coming. I told him no, and said some things about how everything was going to be okay. Ms. Jackson came in and put clean underwear on Owen, put his pajamas back on, and packed some clothes in a backpack for him.
As we continued to pack, Ms. Jackson stood in the bedroom doorway with her mouth half-open, no sound coming out. Carla ran down the stairs and waited for us in front of the police car.

In the back of the car on our way to ECS, Owen saw his big sister crying. He sat on my lap and started crying into my shirt.

Almost all removals take place at night. Caseworkers are too busy during the day, and a family is also more likely to be home after dark. But some workers deliberately wait till after hours, for the time-and-a-half overtime. Doing a removal, staying out all night at ECS, and then taking the child to a foster home can mean more than doubling a day's pay. With caseworkers' salaries starting at under $32,000, overtime makes a big difference.

The caseworkers who want nothing to do with removals can rely on other caseworkers who volunteer for the money. When supervisors are desperate to find someone to do a removal, they often encourage caseworkers by reminding them, "You could use the extra cash." The consequence is caseworkers arriving at ECS with no idea why they just removed the kids who are with them. When the ECS intake worker or an ACS lawyer asks them why the children were removed, "I don't know, it's not my case" is a standard response. Or simply, "Because my supervisor told me to."

Any caseworker can tell you that they have done removals that they did not personally agree with. But they rarely complain to management, since they will never get in trouble for removing a child under supervisors' orders. Caseworkers are also quiet about unnecessary removals because doing a removal and then transferring a case to foster care takes them a lot less time than keeping it and trying to work with a family. Keeping a case obligates a worker to do regular home visits and follow-ups to make sure a family is getting preventive services. It also means dealing with anything that may go wrong and continuing to be responsible for the children's safety.

To become a child protective caseworker, you do not need to have any experience working with children, or demonstrate that you actually want to work with children. No one even asks if you like children. You must simply have a bachelor's degree in a social science field and pass a two-part exam. For the oral part we were asked to think of five questions we would ask a parent, based on a short case scenario. A "powerful rotting odor" is supposed to prompt test-takers to ask, "What is that smell?" For the written test, we listened to a series of voice mail recordings and wrote down phone numbers and other details. This was not a test of common sense, or even listening skills. It seemed to be a test to see if we were alive.

Once hired, caseworkers have six weeks of training, where they are taught how to conduct interviews, identify abuse and neglect, and carry out a removal. Legal issues, child development, domestic violence, sensitivity to cultural issues and handling angry clients were also part of the curriculum. Through it all, caseworkers are taught, it is essential to treat clients respectfully and professionally.

But the social work lingo of the training, where we spent two days discussing the need to "leave your baggage at the door," is far removed from the harsh reality of a field office. For new caseworkers, the obsessive concern with liability at the field offices quickly overshadows the reasonable criteria they have been taught for identifying abuse and neglect. Most quickly learn to abandon their training and to do what it takes to survive.

ACS has been making strides cutting down heavy caseloads, but it's still a stressful and at times tedious job--each case, no matter how trivial, calls for the same 15-page report. A contradiction at the heart of it all makes the work even more difficult. Caseworkers are trained to be service providers and advocates for families. To work together with families to uncover and solve problems in the home, caseworkers must establish an intimate rapport with their clients. Yet at the very same time they are engaged in an act of betrayal: as they write down parents' statements and survey their homes and behavior, caseworkers are building a potential court case against them. At no point are they able to tell their clients that everything they say can be used against them in court. The relationship of caseworker and client becomes one of manipulation, characterized by a deep lack of trust on both sides.
Although many of the best caseworkers get fed up and leave the agency, there are good workers who have been at ACS for years. They have survived because they have learned how to manipulate the system to make it work for themselves and their clients. They purposely omit or obscure facts about families in their case records and in their discussions with their supervisors to save clients from unnecessary court action. The most fortunate have supervisors who share their commitment to respecting families' rights. I was one of them: One of my supervisors was a mentor to me, and I considered her directives highly valuable.

Several months before I left the agency, an Emergency Children's Services supervisor who was resigning after more than 10 years blanketed the agency with a stunning email. He began by saying that he is not leaving the agency any better than when he started. He blamed this lack of improvement on ACS Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta, whom he accused of being more preoccupied with making the agency look good in the media than with making substantial changes that help clients. "ACS cares more about statistics than they do about children, forgetting that those statistics represent real children," he wrote. The supervisor had equally harsh words for protective caseworkers: "ACS workers cannot absolve themselves of responsibility for doing wrong removals by blaming them on their supervisors or managers or on agency policy." He compared the level of obedience and complacency at the agency to Nazi soldiers who killed 11 million civilians during World War II because "they too were just carrying out orders." Nobody around me talked about the email, not even to disagree.

Carla and Owen were placed in foster care that night. The next day, Theresa went to court. The judge, who happened to be in his seventies himself, ordered that Owen be returned home immediately. The judge stated the obvious: Old age is not grounds for neglect. Carla, however, was to remain in foster care because of her behavior problems. When the judge asked Theresa if she felt the children were in imminent danger, she answered that in her opinion they were not.
Posted by osoluckyme at 12:30 PM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: abuse, corruption, cps corruption, dcf, foster kids, NY, racketeering

How to Destroy a Family Just make one phone call!

How to Destroy a Family

Just make one phone call!

If you want to destroy a family, just pick up a phone and call the state government on them. One of the most vicious and rotten things a person could ever do to their neighbor is to call Child Protection Services (CPS) unless it is 100% certain that the children are in danger (Even then, I would only call the police and let them make the decision). In Illinois and Georgia, this monstrous agency is called DCFS (Department of Child and Family Services). What a misnomer! For every family they help, they destroy several others. Just ask any parent who has been "turned into the system". If you haven't been "charged" by the system, then you don't know the nightmare involved to get out. It's hell on earth. Hopefully you're not one of those fool headed morons that is quick to pick up a phone and hurt others. Beware of feminists because they are much more likely to turn you into the system. They've ruined their own marriages, murdered their own children through abortion, and now they want to destroy your family too. Increasingly, due to the moral decline of America, women are becoming tough...boisterous...arrogant...proud...and dominating. In a word...rebellious (against God and the Biblical teaching of womanly submission). What is feminism's dead end?

My wife was talking on the phone one day with a "Christian" woman that we had known from church. We hadn't seen the couple for many years because they moved away. The woman made mention to my wife that she had called Child Protection Services on her neighbor (a single mother) because the kids weren't being "watched" properly. I explained to my wife that we shouldn't have any dealings with those "Christian" folks anymore because they were trouble. We agreed. Her husband always wanted to gossip and criticize others. I rarely spoke with him. My wife had spoken with his wife from time to time. When we found out that they had called the monstrous state on their neighbor, we decided to cut all ties. We don't need friends like that. I just don't think I could ever call the state on any family knowing what I know about the "system" and how it hurts families. If you've never been in the merciless CPS system, then you can't reasonable argue the matter. Just so you don't misunderstand me, I would call the police if I knew that a child was being beaten or endangered. I surely would NOT call CPS on any parent for failure to watch their children as much as I think they should.

The so-called "mandatory reporter" (such as teachers, nurses, etc) laws are dangerous in my opinion. Children are rough, they jump, they fight, they get easily bruised. Countless good mothers have found themselves in court before an administrative-hearing judge for wrongful allegations of abuse. Though some would argue that it's "better safe than sorry," far too many good families are ending up financially and emotionally devastated because of unjust judges, overzealous case workers and malicious people who know how to use a phone. Unless you've actually been the victim of the godless and monstrous CPS/DCFS system, then you have little idea of the hellish nightmare that a family goes through when the state gets involved. I and my wife know personally because we were forced into selling our home to pay off our legal debts which ran up over $20,000 fighting the godless system. It's an emotional rollercoaster to say the least (and often financially devastating).

In the first place, when you call Child Protection Services on a family, you are sentencing them to a MINIMUM of five years in the SYSTEM. Guaranteed! "Prison" is an appropriate term for parents entangled in the CPS System's legal spider web. In fact, prisoners actually have more rights because they're provided free legal representation. When you're attacked by the state government, you're on your own financially. You'll feel like no one cares at all (and most people don't). The people that DO care are usually powerless to help you. Your best bet is the news media if they'll get involved.

Also, a different case worker is assigned every three months. Your home is invaded by an INSPECTOR (the case worker/social worker) who scrutinizes everything. The parents are on continuous trial, at the mercy of the ALMIGHTY SUPREME STATE CASE WORKER (often a former welfare recipient or drug addict who was reformed and then hired by the state). Unless you have $20,000 to hire a lawyer, you're a total helpless victim. Do a web search online and you'll find an unbelievable amount of abuses committed by these so-called "protection" agencies run by the government. Illinois has had a serious problem with "lost children" in the system. How do you lose a child? The government has grown too big for it's own britches. Now they're even forcing children to Receive Mandatory Mental Screening, sometimes even killing the children. This is evil.

I am not saying that a child who is being abused should be ignored by neighbors, but I am saying that there is a broad spectrum of what different people would consider "abuse". Many idiots have called CPS on another parent simply for spanking their child. That's ridiculous! God put that padded area back there for a reason...for discipline. I do NOT believe that any parent should ever strike their child in anger...ever! Child abuse is wrong! But spanking a child PROPERLY is not abuse. Discipline should never hurt a child, but reinforce positive character traits. No loving parent enjoys disciplining their child, but knows that it is for the child's own development. It is frightening that anyone would consider disciplining a child as "abuse". Obviously they either don't have children or don't care how their children are raised. I firmly believe in using a spanking as a last resort. Using praise to motivate a child is FAR BETTER than using discipline as a means of motivation. Yes, discipline is a motivator, but far from the best. A child should do what's right out of inspiration and love, not out of fear of chastisement. But a child that doesn't respond to love and praise needs to be chastised in a loving, but firm manner. Rather the parent do it now than a correctional facility down the road.

I'm just saying that you had better think twice before picking up that phone. Is it worth placing someone into the state's tyrant run CPS system? That's all I'm saying. Few people realize the miseries that they can cause for someone else by just making one little phone call. Miseries that may last for a decade or even a lifetime.



Children of the State... The truth about CPS and Foster Care
An Inconvenient Truth about Child Protective Services, Foster care, and
the Child Protection "INDUSTRY"

Child Protective Services Does not protect children...
It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even killed at the hands of CPS.

Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US
These numbers come from The National Center on
Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN)
Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS

Perpetrators of Maltreatment
Physical Abuse CPS/Foster care 160, Parents 59
Sexual Abuse CPS/Foster care 112, Parents 13
Neglect CPS/Foster care 410, Parents 241
Medical Neglect CPS/Foster care 14, Parents 12
Fatalities CPS/Foster care 6.4, Parents 1.5

Imagine that, 6.4 children die at the hands of the very agencies that are supposed to protect them and only 1.5 at the hands of parents per 100,000 children. CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse and kills more children then parents in the United States. If the citizens of this country hold CPS to the same standards that they hold parents too. No judge should ever put another child in the hands of ANY government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty of more harm and death than any human being combined. CPS nationwide is guilty of more human rights violations and deaths of children then the homes from which they were removed. When are the judges going to wake up and see that they are sending children to their death and a life of abuse when children are removed from safe homes based on the mere opinion of a bunch of social workers.


I highly recommend that Christian parents consider homeschooling their children (Please read: Twenty-One Ways "Public Schools" Harm Your Children. Also, Public Schools are Evil. The public school system is straight out of hell. If you're children are schooled at home, then the godless public school system can't brainwash and scrutinize your children with doctrines of devils (such as evolution and New Age).

"Parents give up their rights when they drop the children off at public school."1

-Texas Federal District Judge Melinda Harmon

Please read, Monitor Thy Neighbor by Congressman Ron Paul. Also, Operation Snitch.

Spank children on plane, lose them forever

Information For Parents

Why is the Government Stockpiling Survival Food?

It really is a small world ... especially in the
preparedness and survival industries. With a community that prides
itself on staying informed, you can't really keep things secret for
long. So it's no surprise that we were among the first to get wind of
some very unsettling news. In fact, it was so disturbing that we felt
it was only right to share with you what we've learned.

One of the nation's largest suppliers of dehydrated food
has cut loose 99% of their dealers and distributors. And it's not
because of the poor economy. It's because this particular industry
leader can no longer supply their regular distribution channels. Why
not? Because they're using every bit of manufacturing capacity they
have to fulfill massive new government contracts. Look, the
government has always been a customer of the industry to some extent.
But according to our sources, this latest development doesn't
represent simply a change of vendor on the government's part. It's a
whole new magnitude of business.

And that's not all.

Apparently, even though they've cut off their regular
consumer markets, the industry leader I've just mentioned still can't
produce enough survival food to meet the government's vast
requirements. How do we know? Earlier this month, FEMA (the Federal
Emergency Management Agency) put out a Request for Proposal, or RFP,
for even more dehydrated food. The RFP called for a 10-day supply of
meals - for 14 million people. That's 420 million meals. Typically,
FEMA maintains a stockpile of about 6 million meals. Why the sudden
need to increase the stockpile by 420 million more? (And that's in
addition to whatever our aforementioned industry leader is
supplying.) It almost seems like they're trying to stock a modern day
"Noah's Ark," doesn't it?

By the way, just days after the RFP went online, it
suddenly went "poof" ... vanished. Could it be that some high level
official suddenly realized he was letting the cat out of the bag?
That people aren't stupid, and would recognize the implications of
420 million emergency meals? Has the government removed the RFP from
the public process and approached potential suppliers privately
instead? We may never know.

But here's what we do know. This kind of spending by a
minor government agency in this economy just doesn't make sense ...
unless there are extraordinary circumstances behind it, circumstances
we aren't privy to. Because Congress has failed to pass a budget, the
government is now operating under what's called a continuing
resolution. The practical effect of this continuing resolution is
that the government stays in business, but all extras are curtailed.
Agencies spend far less on travel and training expenses, for
instance. And they certainly don't start stockpiling supplies.

In this economic climate, you would expect FEMA also to
be minimizing expenses. But clearly, they're not. If you do the math,
the approximate tab for 420 million meals comes to about a billion

What is so urgent that FEMA is spending a billion dollars
on survival food?

Could officials be worried about extensive power grid
damage from solar flares? (A big one hit last week and took out
communications in China.) Are they worried about riots and
demonstrations causing gridlock in communities? (The demonstrations
in Wisconsin and Ohio have been peaceful so far ... but look what
happened in Egypt.) Are they worried about terrorist attacks? (Some
reports say that there's been more "chatter" lately on terrorist
communication networks.)
But here's the most important question. No matter what it
is - are you ready for it?

Are the cans of soup and the extra jar of peanut butter
in your pantry going to be enough? How long will it last you? Because
let's face it, in a true emergency, forget about finding what you
need at the store. You know what it's like when there's even a
moderate snowstorm in the forecast - no bottled water, no toilet
paper, no bread to be found anywhere. The shelves are stripped bare
in hours. Most people simply don't realize how fragile the food
distribution system is in this country. In order to squeeze out every
penny of profits, most stores now use just-in-time inventory systems,
which leave no margin for error. Any kind of natural or manmade
catastrophe would cut supply lines to the stores and leave millions
of people with no way of getting food. And it could be anything.
Power outages. Riots. A terrorist attack. Flooding. Blizzards.

If you've never gotten around to buying an emergency food
now is the time.

If you've been putting off this decision, perhaps it's
because there's a lot to consider. Things like shelf life,
nutritional value, cost, storage space, portability, and even the
packaging. The ideal storage food is shelf stable for long periods of
time, nutritious, great tasting, easy to prepare, and easy to store.
So where can you find the best emergency food supply for your money?

The 72 Hour Emergency Meal Kit from Solutions From
Science fits the bill on all counts. It's shelf stable for up to 25
years, compact, delicious, convenient, and nutritious. We recommend
you get at least one Kit per family member. Each Kit provides 12 meal
servings for one person for 3 days. Plus, you won't have to worry
about eating the same thing meal after meal. The 72 Hour Emergency
Meal Kit gives you six pouches with two jumbo servings in each pouch.
It comes in four delicious varieties: Lasagna, Chicken Ala King,
Creamy Chicken Pasta, and Stroganoff. No other emergency meal kits
give you a better value, and here's why:

Filling and delicious - today, tomorrow, or 25 years from
The food in our 72 Hour Emergency Meal Kit is designed to
last up to 25 years in optimal storage conditions. How is that
possible? First, we use no animal proteins, which can make food
rancid. Next, we remove excess oxygen by flushing the package
interior with nitrogen to prevent food spoilage. Each package is
sealed to protect against moisture, sunlight, and critters. The
compact packaging makes it easy to grab and go, too, if you need to
get to a safer location. You can even keep store some in the trunk of
your car, just in case.

Flavorful enough to eat even when there's no emergency
Every one of our recipes is developed by expert chefs who
understand that survival food is only as good as it tastes. When
you're in an emergency situation, enjoying a tasty meal helps to keep
stress down and morale up. Some people even use our emergency meal
pouches as Plan B when they don't have time to get a home-cooked meal
on the table. It's that good! It's also ideal to take along when you
go camping, backpacking, fishing, or hunting. The secret is in the
careful preservation of the ingredients. Some companies cut corners
by either freeze-drying all ingredients, or by dehydrating all
ingredients. We don't; we use the right preservation technique for
each food. This ensures that flavor, texture, color, and nutrients
are all preserved optimally.

"Stick a fork in it!"
Our unique cook-in-the-pouch technology means you don't
have to worry about finding or washing a cooking pot. To prepare a
meal, you simply open the meal pouch, add boiling water, reseal, and
wait 12 minutes. Then dive in with a fork or spoon and enjoy. It's
that easy! What if you don't have a way to heat the water in an
emergency? Use cold water instead. It just takes a few minutes more.

Who's got the real "value meal?"
If you take advantage of our special sale, you'll pay
just $3.25 per serving. It's a value that can't be beat. That cost is
easily in line with what you'd normally spend per person for lunch or
dinner. You can't even buy a fast food "value meal" for $3.25. And
"value meals" don't stay shelf stable for long periods of time.

To take advantage of this very special sale, be
sure to use coupon code

Wouldn't you sleep better at night knowing you and your
family will have food on the table (or in the pouch), no matter what
may happen? I urge you not to delay; order your supply of emergency
food today.

The first 72 hours in any emergency are critical. Having
a plan in place to ensure everyone has food is one of the top
priorities. That's why we recommend you get at least one Kit per
family member. But if your budget allows, we urge you to stock up and
get even more. We've developed a very special offer for you - but it
won't last long, so hurry! The Meal Kit normally costs $59, but for
the next 72 hours, you can buy it for just $39.97 (plus $15 shipping
and handling). This special sale ends Friday, February 25, at 11:59pm
Central Time. We won't be able to offer prices this low again. To
take advantage of this special sale, order online at and be sure to use coupon
code 72hour.

Be well,

Bill Heid
President, Solutions From Science

P.S. We have ironclad agreements with our supplier so
that our supplies will not be interrupted by government contracts.
But we expect demand to be high, so I urge you to order your 72 Hour
Emergency Meal Kit without delay.

Help a friend by forwarding this newsletter to them!

This newsletter is a free weekly service of Solutions
From Science. You can reach us at:

Solutions From Science
815 W. Main St.
P.O. Box 518
Thomson, IL 61285
Email us at

Solutions From Science, 815 W. Main Street, PO Box 518, Thomson, IL
61285, USA


Submitted by Guy Euden

Ok, this was found by one of the TPUC's hardest working researchers, "HEV" she spends her time delving into things that stagger the imagination, good news, soon she will have an article out, so look out for it.

An article Hev found recently is the one below, read it, you will be VERY INTERESTED, its in 3 parts, really I recommend it!!!!

To the people,

I found this paper while going through Stephen Ames' files.I am
Hoping that you will put it out on your E-mail and fax networks. This paper
Explains and documents very much. It is absolutely mind blowing !!!!!!

If you place this paper on your E-mail and fax networks I will be more
Than happy to respond to people's questions. I have all of the documents
Cited in this paper and they are available. This paper will shock even
Those who think that they know what has happened and what is now taking
Place. The deception is incredible. If the people do not respond to
This information we can then truly say that it is over and that we will
Never be free. This paper is not opinion, but it is fact and is all

Now, what people have to realize is there are remedies for the problems
That not just America faces, but the World. There are people all over the
World that know what is going on and they are doing something about it.
People all over America are emerging victorious over the images in their
Minds. Let us not forget the absolute astonishing amount of debt
Discharges that have taken place over the last few months. What is happening
In America is unbelievable. People are coming out of the delusions, they have
Figured and realized that the United States is a fiction and that it only
Exists in our minds. Tens of thousands of people now know that the "United
States" does not exist and that it never has. There is no such thing as the
National debt or a loan from the bank. Has any one ever seen "current credit
Money ?" The entire governmental system only exists in your mind.

Queen Elizabeth controls and has amended U.S. Social Security, as follows:

S.I. 1997 NO.1778 The Social Security ( United States of America)
Order 1997 Made 22nd of July 1997 coming into force 1st September 1997. At
The Court at Buckingham Palace the 22nd day of July 1997. Now, therefore Her
Majesty an pursuance of section 179 (1) (a) and (2) of the Social Security
Administration Act of 1992 and all other powers enabling Her in that behalf,
Is please, by and with advise of Her privy Council, to order, and it is
Hereby ordered as follows:

"This Order may be cited as the Social Security (United States of America)
Order 1997 and shall come into force on 1st September 1997."

Does this give a new meaning to Federal Judge William Wayne Justice
stating in court that he takes his orders from England? This order goes on to
Redefine words in the Social Security Act and makes some changes in United
States Law.

Remember, King George was the "Arch-Treasurer and Prince Elector of the
Holy Roman Empire and c, and of the United States of America." See: Treaty of
Peace (1738) 8 U.S. Statutes at Large. Great Britain which is the agent for
The Pope, is in charge of the USA 'plantation.'

What people do not know is that the so called Founding Fathers
And King George were working hand-n-hand to bring the people of America to
There knees, to install a Central Government over them and to bind them to a
Debt that could not be paid. First off you have to understand that the UNITED
STATES is a corporation and that it existed before the Revolutionary war. See
Respublica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43. 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15)

Now, you also have to realize that King George was not just the King
Of England, he was also the King of France. Treaty of Peace * U.S. 8 Statutes
At Large 80.

On January 22, 1783 Congress ratified a contract for the
Repayment of 21 loans that the UNITED STATES had already received dating from
February 28, 1778 to July 5, 1782. Now the UNITED STATES Inc. Owes the King
Money which is due January 1, 1788 from King George via France. Is this not
Incredible the King funded both sides of the War. But there was more work
That needed to be done. Now the Articles of Confederation which was declared
in force March 1, 1781 States in Article 12 " All bills of credit emitted,
monies borrowed,and debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress,
before the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present
confederation, shall be deemed and considered a charge against the United
States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States, and the
public faith are hereby solemnly pledged."

Now after losing the Revolutionary War, even though the War was
nothing more than a move to turn the people into debtors for the King, they
were not done yet.

Now the loans were coming due and so a meeting was convened in
Annapolis, Maryland, to discuss the economic instability of the country under
the Articles of Confederation. Only five States come to the meeting, but
there is a call for another meeting to take place in Philadelphia the
following year with the express purpose of revising the Articles of

On February 21, 1787 Congress gave approval of the meeting to take
place in Philadelphia on May 14, 1787, to revise the Articles of
confederation. Something had to be done about the mounting debt. Little did
the people know that the so called founding fathers were acutely going to
reorganize the United States because it was Bankrupt.

On September 17, 1787 twelve State delegates approve the Constitution.
The States have now become Constitutors. Constitutor: In the civil law, one
who, by simple agreement, becomes responsible for the payment of another's
debt. Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Ed. The States were now liable for the debt
owed to the King, but the people of America were not because they were not a
party to the Constitution because it was never put to them for a vote On
August 4th, 1790 an Act was passed which was Titled.-An Act making provision
for the payment of the Debt of the United States. This can be found at 1 U.S.
Statutes at Large pages 138-178. This Act for all intents and purposes
abolished the States and Created the Districts. If you don't believe it look
it up. The Act set up Federal Districts, here in Pennsylvania we got two. In
this Act each District was assigned a portion of the debt. The next step was
for the states to reorganize their governments which most did in 1790. This
had to be done because the States needed to legally bind the people to the
debt. The original State Constitutions were never submitted to the people for
a vote. So the governments wrote new constitutions and submitted them to
people for a vote thereby binding the people to the debts owed to Great
Britain. The people became citizens of the State where they resided and ipso
facto a citizen of the United States. A citizen is a member of a fictional
entity and it is synonymous with subject.

What you think is a state is in reality a corporation, in other
words, a Person.

"Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is Person." 9 F. Supp 272
"Word "person" does not include state. 12 Op Atty Gen 176.

There are no states, just corporations. Every body politic on this
planet is a corporation. A corporation is an artificial entity, a fiction at
law. They only exist in your mind. They are images in your mind, that speak
to you. We labor, pledge our property and give our children to a fiction.

Now before we go any further let us examine a few things in the Constitution.

Article six section one keeps the loans from the King valid it
states; All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States
under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

Another interesting tidbit can be found at Article One Section
Eight clause Two which states that Congress has the power to borrow money on
the credit of the United States. This was needed so the United States (Which
went into Bankruptcy on January 1, 1788) could borrow money and then because
the States were a party to the Constitution they would also be liable for it.

The next underhanded move was the creation of The United States Bank
in 1791. This was a private Bank of which there were 25,000 shares issued of
which 18,000 were held by those in England. The Bank loaned the United States
money in exchange for Securities of the United States

Now the creditors of the United States which included the King
wanted paid the Interest on the loans that were given to the United States.
So Alexander Hamilton came up with the great idea of taxing alcohol.The
people resisted so George Washington sent out the militia to collect the tax
which they did. This has become known as the Whiskey rebellion. It is the
Militia's duty to collect taxes. How did the United States collect taxes off
of the people if the people are not a party to the Constitution? I'll tell
you how. The people are slaves! The United States belongs to the floundering
fathers and their posterity and Great Britain. America is nothing more than a
Plantation. It always has been. How many times have you seen someone in court
attempt to use the Constitution and then the Judge tells him he can't. It is
because you are not a party to it. We are SLAVES!!!!!!! If you don't believe
read Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah.
14 Georgia 438, 520 which states " But, indeed, no private person has a right
to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the
Constitution, the Constitution, it is true, is a compact but he is
not a party to it."

Now back to the Militia. Just read Article One Section Eight clause
(15) which states that it is the militia's job to execute the laws of the
Union. Now read Clause (16) Which states that Congress has the power to
provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for
governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United
States.... the Militia is not there to protect you and me, it is their to
collect our substance.

As you can plainly see all the Constitution did is set up a Military
Government to guard the King's commerce and make us slaves.

If one goes to 8 U.S. statutes at large 116-132 you will find "The Treaty
of Amity, Commerce and Navigation. This Treaty was signed on November 19th,
1794 which was twelve years after the War. Article 2 of the Treaty states
that the King's Troops were still occupying the United States. Being the nice
King that he was , he decided that the troops would return to England by June
1st, 1796. The troops were still on American soil because, quite frankly the
King wanted them here.

Here is the key to were this started:

Many people tend to blame the Jews for our problems. Jewish Law governs the
entire world, as found in Jewish Law by MENACHEM ELON, DEPUTY PRESIDENT

"Everything in the Babylonian Talmud is binding on all Israel.
Every town and country must follow all customs, give effect to the decrees,
and carry out the enactment's of the Talmudic sages, because the entire
Jewish people accepted everything contained in Talmud. The sages who adopted
the enactment's and decrees, instituted the practices, rendered the
decisions, and derived the laws, constituted all or most of the Sages of
Israel. It is they who received the tradition of the fundamentals of the
entire Torah in unbroken succession going back to Moses, our teacher."

We are living under what the Bible calls Mammon. As written in the
subject Index, Mammon is defined as ("Civil law and procedure").

Now turn to the "The Shetars Effect on English Law" -- A Law of the Jews
Becomes the Law of the Land, found in "The George Town Law Journal, Vol 71:
pages 1179-1200." It is clearly stated in the Law Review that the Jews are
the property of the Norman and Anglo-Saxon Kings. It also explains that the
Talmud is the law of the land. It explains how the Babylonian Talmud became
the law of the land, which is now known as the Uniform Commercial Code. The
written credit agreement -- the Jewish shetar is a lien on all property
(realty) and today it's called the mortgage! The treatise also explains that
the Jews are owned by Great Britain and the Jews are in charge of the Baking

We are living under the Babylonian Talmud, it is were all of
our problems come from. It was brought into England in 1066 and has been
enforced by the Pope, Kings and the Christian churches ever since. It is
total and relentless mind control, people are taught to believe in things
that do not exist.

Now before you scream that the UCC is unconstitutional I'm sorry
people, you are not a party to any constitution. Read the case cite below.

"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in
court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is
true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it." Padelford, Fay & Co., vs.
Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah 14 Ga. 438, 520

You have to understand that Great Britain,(Article six Section one)
the United States and the States are the parties to the Constitution not you.
Let me try to explain. If I buy an automobile from a man and that automobile
has a warranty and the engine blows up the first day I have it. Then I tell
the man just forget about it. Then you come along and tell the man to pay me
and he says no. So you take him to court for not holding up the contract. The
court then says case dismissed. Why ? Because you are not a party to the
contract. You cannot sue a government official for not adhering to a contract
(Constitution) that you are not a party too. You better accept the fact that
you are a Slave. When you try to use the Constitution you are committing a
CRIME known as CRIMINAL TRESPASS. Why ? Because you are attempting to
infringe on a private contract that you are not a party to. Then to make
matters worse you are a debt slave who owns no property or has any rights.
You are a mere user of your Masters property! Here are just a couple of

"The primary control and custody of infant is with the government"
Tillman V. Roberts. 108 So. 62

" Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties-the husband,
the wife and the state." Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E. 146.

"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State: individual
so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law amounting
to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to
the necessities of the State. Senate Document No. 43 73rd Congress 1st
Session. (Brown v. Welch supra) You own no Property because you are a
slave. Really you are worse off than a slave because you are also a debtor.

"The right of traffic or the transmission of property, as an absolute
inalienable right, is one which has never existed since governments were
instituted, and never can exist under government." Wynehamer v. The People.
13 N.Y. Rep.378, 481

Great Britain to this day collects taxes from the American people. The IRS
is not an Agency of the United States Government.

All taxpayers have an Individual Master File which is in code. By
using IRS Publication 6209, which is over 400 pages, there is a blocking
series which shows the taxpayer the type of tax that is being paid. Most
taxpayers fall under a 300-399 blocking series, which 6209 states is
reserved, but by going to BMF 300-399 which is the Business Master File in
6209 prior to 1991, this was U.S.-U.K. Tax Claims, meaning taxpayers are
considered a business and involved in commerce and are held liable for taxes
via a treaty between the U.S. and the U.K., payable to the U.K. The form that
is supposed to be used for this is form 8288, FIRPTA-Foreign Investment Real
Property Tax Account. The 8288 form is in the Law Enforcement Manual of the
IRS, chapter 3. The OMB's-paper-Office of Management and Budget, in the
Department of Treasury, List of Active Information collections, Approved
Under Paperwork Reduction Act is where form 8288 is found under OMB number
1545-0902, which says U.S. with holding tax return for dispositions by
foreign persons, of U.S. Form #8288, #8288a.

These codes have since been changed to read as follows: IMF 300-309,
Barred Assessment, CP 55 generated valid for MFT-30, which is the code for
the 1040 form. IMF 310-399 reads the same as IMF 300-309, BMF 390-399 reads
U.S.-U.K. Tax Treaty Claims. Isn't it INCREDIBLE that a 1040 form is a
payment of a tax to the U.K. Everybody is always looking to 26 U.S.C. for the
law that makes one liable for the so called Income Tax but, it is not in
there because it is not a Tax, it is debt collection through a private
contract called the Constitution of the United States Article Six, Section
One. and various agreements. Is a cow paying an income tax when the machine
gets connected to it's udders ? The answer is no. I have never known a cow
that owns property or has been compensated for its labor. You own nothing
that your labor has ever produced. You don't even own your labor or yourself.
Your labor is measured in current credit money. You are allowed to retain a
small portion of your labor so that you can have food, clothing shelter and
most of all breed more slaves. Did you ever notice how many of the other
slaves get upset if you try to retain your labor. You are called an
extremist, terrorist and sometimes even a freeman. They say that you are
anti-government. When the truth of the matter is you just don;t want to be a
slave. But, you do not have the right to force others to be free if they want
to be a slave that is entirely up to them. If they want bow down and worship
corporations, let them. The United States, Great Britain and the Pope are not
the problem, it is the other slaves.

We would be free if the want-to-be-slaves were gone. The United States, Great Britain and the Pope would not even exist, because no one would acknowledge them. I for a matter
of fact, think that those who are in power are also tired of the slaves. All the slaves do is stand around and MOO!!! For free healthcare, free education,
free housing and they beg those who are in power to disarm them I do agree
that a slave should not have access to a firearm. How can you disagree with
the government passing out birth control ? I hope the breeding of slaves
stops or at the very least slows down.

You see we are cows, the IRS is company who milks the cows and the United
States Inc. is the veterinarian who takes care of the herd and Great Britain
is the Owner of the farm in fee simple. The farm is held in allodium by the

Now to Rome.

"Convinced that the principles of religion contribute most powerfully to
keep nations in the state of passive obedience which they owe to their
princes, the high contracting parties declare it to be their intention to
sustain in their respective states, those measures which the clergy may adopt
with the aim of ameliorating their interests, so intimately connected with
the preservation of the authority of the princes; and the contracting powers
join in offering their thanks to the Pope for what he has already done for
them, and solicit his constant cooperation in their views of submitting the
nations." Article (3) Treaty of Varona (1822)

If the Sovereign Pontiff should nevertheless, insist on his law being
observed he must be obeyed. Bened. XIV., De Syn. Dioec, lib, ix., c. vii., n.
4. Prati, 1844. Pontifical laws moreover become obligatory without being
accepted or confirmed by secular rulers. Syllabus, prop. 28, 29, 44. Hence
the jus nationale,(Federal Law) or the exceptional ecclesiastical laws
prevalent in the United States, may be abolished at any time by the Sovereign
Pontiff. Elements of Ecclesiastical Law. Vol. I 53-54. So could this be shown
that the Pope rules the world?

The Pope is the ultimate owner of everything in the World. See Treaty of
1213, Papal Bull of 1455 and 1492.

I could go on and on, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Don't let
this information scare you because without it you cannot be free, You have
to understand that all slavery and freedom originates in the mind. When your
mind allows you to accept and understand that the United States, Great
Britain and the Vatican are corporations which are nothing but fictional
entities which have been placed into your mind, you will understand that your
slavery was because you believed a lie.

The Mexican Government's Official Plan for a Takeover of America
By W.J. Perry December 12, 2002

There are approximately 18 million Mexican immigrants living in the United States today. Out of that 18 million, it is estimated that 3 million, or nearly 20 percent, are illegal aliens. Those 18 million Mexicans present a growing threat to America’s self-determination because many play a dual citizenship role officially encouraged by the Mexican government. This is no secret; it’s all in Mexico’s official "National Plan of Development 2001-2006." This shocking document is a five-year plan full of political rhetoric emphasizing planned improvements for every aspect of Mexico’s infrastructure, but it also lays out specific strategies for expanding the nation’s political reach far beyond the US-Mexico border. In other words, Mexico is systematically trying to cultivate dual loyalties, i.e. disloyalty, among its ethnic compatriots in America. This is a naked expansion of Mexico’s national interest at the expense of ours; the mystery is why we are tolerating it.

"Globalization" is the buzzword that appears numerous times throughout Mexico’s plan. To achieve that goal, the Mexican government is counting on its citizens living abroad to strengthen Mexico’s influence throughout North America. The Mexican government is demanding that we give all Mexican illegals a free pass, and also support them with numerous social services paid for by American taxpayers. Some of these – like free medical care -- we do not even provide to our own citizens. Mexico’s plan specifically outlines its intent concerning Mexican citizens who have entered the United States illegally in a subsection titled "Defense Of Mexicans Abroad." The plan states:

"It is important to note that even if Mexico has achieved a number of agreements and mechanisms to ensure better treatment of our countrymen abroad, the issue of migration, especially in the United States, needs a new focus over the long term to permit the movement and residence of Mexican nationals to be safe, comfortable, legal and orderly, and the attitude of police persecution of this phenomenon must be abandoned and it must be perceived as a labor and social phenomenon."

In other words, nothing is illegal and we are not a nation of laws any more, only markets.

In a television interview in 2000, Mexico’s President Vincente Fox made his country’s intentions clear concerning the balance of power in the Western Hemisphere:

"I'm talking about a community of North America, an integrated agreement of Canada, the United States, and Mexico in the long term, 20, 30, 40 years from now. And this means that some of the steps we can take are, for instance, to agree that in five years we will make this convergence on economic variables. That may mean in 10 years we can open up that border when we have reduced the gap in salaries and income."

In other words, his stated long-term goal is the abolition of the border between the US and Mexico. This is a polite way of saying an end to America’s distinct nationhood, i.e. to our nationhood, period. We are to be dragged down to the level of the corrupt, impoverished, backward, crony-capitalist disaster – a nation whose citizens evaluate quite honestly by fleeing at the rate of millions per decade – on our southern border.

On the surface, Mexico’s globalist vision for economic unity seems innocent, but it’s likely to create a very dangerous situation for America. Unlike our nation of mixed nationalities with various loyalties, Mexicans are extremely nationalistic, and they usually side with their homeland first on all issues. Considering that Hispanics are now the largest minority group in America at 12.6 percent, and Mexicans make up half of that population, the Mexican government is well on its way to wielding significant influence over U.S. policy by relying on the loyalties of their 18 million dual citizens.

Another disturbing section of Mexico’s National Plan concerns the government’s effort to set up illegal immigrants with special identification cards, allowing them to open bank accounts and acquire driver’s licenses anywhere in the United States. Basically, any Mexican illegal alien can walk into the nearest Mexican consulate with $29 and walk out with a "consulate card". These cards are officially recognized in Mexico allowing illegal immigrants to operate on both sides of the border. Although the cards have been available for many years, they have not been officially recognized in America as proper identification until recently.

In 2001, the reliably-ultraliberal San Francisco combined city and county government unanimously passed a resolution to accept the consulate card as official personal identification. Since that first resolution, law enforcement agencies and municipalities throughout California and other parts of the United States, have also gone on to make exceptions for illegal Mexicans by accepting the cards. This is the first step toward making Mexican border jumpers legal by giving them blanket amnesty, something Vincente Fox has openly called for during immigration talks with the United States.

With a sagging economy and many unrealized campaign promises, Mexico’s leader is fighting for his political life inside what is essentially a third world country. Now, with his old friend and "Border Buddy" President Bush firmly in tow, Vincente Fox is pushing for the eventual abolishment of the US-Mexico border. Such easing of border restrictions would serve as a release valve for the most desperate unemployed Mexicans, thus relieving Mexico’s financial obligation to support its’ poorest citizens. Moreover, free movement across the border would allow Mexican workers to earn their money in the U.S. and spend it back in Mexico.

Just as their national plan dictates, the Fox administration is also encouraging Mexican immigrants to officially participate in Mexican politics from within the United States. In 2001, Mexico passed a law allowing dual citizenship for any Mexican national living abroad, legal or otherwise. In addition, Fox visited California several times this year to campaign for stronger absentee ballot turnouts on behalf of all the Mexican nationals living in the United States. Their dual citizenship law is a major weapon in Mexico’s battle for a piece of the American political pie, but it’s only part of an infiltration campaign that started many years ago.

During the past fifty years, Mexico’s dual loyalists have entered every facet of American society, including many public offices now held by the sons and daughters of Mexicans who originally entered the United States illegally, just to be redeemed by past amnesty programs. For decades they have slowly but relentlessly been taking control of local and state governments throughout the American Southwest. Although these Mexican-Americans were born and raised in the United States, many of them openly put their loyalty to Mexico before their loyalty to America. What other ethnic group in America would we tolerate this from? (When some German-Americans flirted with Hitler in their Bund organization in the 30’s, this so shamed their reputation as an ethnic group that they are now – despite being the largest ethnic group in America – also one of the most silent in terms of explicit ethnic self-expression.)

Today, the Mexican loyalists have become a dominating force in American society, influencing the culture, the language and most importantly, the political process. Thanks to Mexican-American lobbying efforts, California state representatives now officially recognize illegal aliens as "undocumented workers" treating them with a laundry list of special aid programs including free college tuition. Repeat: there are native Americans who can’t afford to go to college, and we are spending taxpayer money to send criminal migrants. In Texas, the state legislature recently conducted an entire legislative session in Spanish, and the story barely made the "B. Block" of local newscasts.

Furthermore, the 2000 presidential campaign proved just how important the Hispanic vote is to politicians on the national front. From day one of the campaign, then Texas Governor, George W. Bush, dragged his half Hispanic nephew, George P. Bush to every media event that might garner a sizable Hispanic audience. The plan worked so well that today George W. Bush is described in many Latin American circles as "America’s first Hispanic president" a strange title for a guy who once referred to Mexico’s national language as "Mexican" instead of Spanish.

Indeed, Bush’s relationship with Mexico and Vincente Fox goes back long before his bid for the presidency. The two were Governors at the same time, and they met regularly over the years concerning various issues including border security, energy production, and trade policy. Then during Bush’s first year as president, he and Fox met four times to discuss US - Mexican relations. In the fall of 2001, Bush publicly mentioned the possibility of a new amnesty program for Mexican illegals, but things cooled dramatically after the 911 attacks. Today however, Bush and Fox are back on the fast track to negotiating Mexico’s plans for economic and political expansion.

After the latest meeting of the US-Mexico Binational Commission (BNC) on November 26, the U.S. State Department confirmed that cabinet members from both sides signed a number of important agreements. One agreement that stands out is the "Bilateral Income Tax Treaty" that amends an existing bilateral income tax treaty between the two nations, thus allowing significant reductions in taxes on dividends, which officials say "will further facilitate cross-border trade and investment." If fully ratified by both nations, this treaty will allow major corporations to invest in either country without being taxed at home on profits earned from across the border, thus merging our economies one step beyond NAFTA.

There is no doubt the Latinization of America is well underway, and Mexico is slyly laying the groundwork that could eventually destroy the security of our southern border. Furthermore, it’s no big secret that many Mexicans dream of reclaiming the land lost to America as a result of the Mexican-American War. Ever since that agreement took effect in 1845, numerous Mexican government officials have openly called for "Reconquista," a political plan to recover the land they believe was unjustly stolen by the American government. Although Mexico has never officially encouraged the Reconquista movement, they have also never discouraged Mexican citizens (on and off American soil) from proclaiming its inevitability.

Frankly, the official plan of Mexico is closer to a plan of colonization than it is to a plan of development. Just as their national plan clearly dictates, the Mexican government is preparing for an attack on America -- an attack perpetrated through ideology and assimilation rather than with bullets and blood. The self-hating political correctness of mainstream Americans, combined with their history-blind confidence that the United States is a nation invulnerable to territorial loss, continues to aid and abet this aggression.