UTAH CHILD WELFARE MONEY
ISSUE PAPERS
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Master List of Resources and References
Please comment if you would like to add to the list. Many resources and references apply to Utah. Contact Matthew J. Falkner if you would like to help with a national/federal list: (262) 421-6248
Disclaimer: NOTHING IN THIS LIST SHOULD BE CONSIDERED QUALIFIED LEGAL ADVISE FROM ANYONE WHO CONTRIBUTED, SHARED, OR GENERATED ANY OF THE CONTENT, unless such person on their own merit, and through their own legal qualifications, explicity endorses any part thereof. This is a community-based compilation of potentially useful information, resources, templates, etc. gathered in the spirit of "good samaritan" good faith. Please do not act on, refer to, or use any of this information unless you have gained endorsement from qualified counsel, or you accept full responsibility and liability for any such use.
Please distribute this link to as many as possible. This will be emailed to politicians and CPS workers everywhere. Contact Matthew J. Falkner for current results of the survey for your use: (262) 421-6248:
Children's Best Interests Survey
US DOJ Calls for Reports of Outrageous Custody Outcomes
When children are taken by the state without grounds for the termination of parental rights, it is among many other serious crimes, Title IV fraud, and should be reported to the HHS OIG tip line: 1-800-447-8477. More info in the link below. Info on standards for grounds is found here.
Group Rate Family Law Legal Workshop Or Contact: Family Law LC; Family Law LC Facebook; Attorney Eric Johnson (801) 450-0183; Matthew Falkner (262) 421-6248 Tentative Workgroup Pricing
Utah Demand for Investigation and Audit
Utah Demand for Oath of Office Compliance
Notice of Cause to Initiate Prosecution and Demand for Performance Utah Code 63G-7-401: (2) Any person having a claim against a governmental entity, or against its employee for an act or omission occurring during the performance of the employee's duties, within the scope of employment, or under color of authority shall file a written notice of claim with the entity before maintaining an action, regardless of whether or not the function giving rise to the claim is characterized as governmental....
THE CITIZEN'S RELIEF AGAINST INACTIVE FEDERAL OFFICIALS: CASE STUDIES IN MANDAMUS, ACTIONS "IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS," AND MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS
Fight CPS Handbook (someyhingforthepeople.com)
Family Reunification Act
78A-6-507. Grounds for termination of parental rights -- Findings regarding reasonable efforts
Utah Citizen's Grand Jury
Survival Advise
Class Action Claim Survey
Class Action Claims Summary
Community Leaders
Public Community Leaders
Utah Family Court Survey
Disqualifying Judges: In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
Fraud on The Court
Ethics in Government Act
Community Recommendations to Utah State DCFS Quality Improvement Committee 2013
Rules of Judicial Conduct (Emphasised to Remove Discretion Ambiguity)
Case Law on Prejudicial Application of Civil Process
Highlighted language from Utah code 62A-4a-201 [Rights of parents -- Children's rights -- Interest and responsibility of state]
Relevant Utah Code on Kinship Placement:
CPS Watch Legal Team
Task Force Study on Legal Disputes in Care, Custody, and Management of Children
The Ombudsman's office. You've probably never heard of them, but they have direct power drom the legislature to investigate DCFS. Total of three staff members though, so good luck. http://www.ocpo.utah.gov/
Pro Se Resources:
Documents: http://www.onyx401.info/sample-pleadings.htm Legal info:http://apps.americanbar.org/legalservices/delivery/downloads/prose_white_paper.pdf
Call Recorder App: You don't have this already? Record everything. Let them Incriminate Themselves, or protect yourself from false charges: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=polis.app.callrecorder Utah call
Recording Law: http://www.callrecordingcenter.com/utah-call-recording-law.php ACLU Resources. They won't help you with family law problems, but their resources list is good: http://www.acluutah.org/legalresources.htm
Rules Governing the DCFS Complaint Process: http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r512/r512-075.htm
Hold Them to Their own Standards - DCFS self inspection form for guideline compliance. https://www.facebook.com/notes/end-dcfs-corruption-in-utah/hold-them-to-their-own-standards/432348706847579
File a complaint about your judge. Utah Code of Judicial Conduct, and The Judicial Review Board http://jcc.utah.gov/code/index.html Need to find a utah law? http://le.utah.gov
Disclaimer: NOTHING IN THIS LIST SHOULD BE CONSIDERED QUALIFIED LEGAL ADVISE FROM ANYONE WHO CONTRIBUTED, SHARED, OR GENERATED ANY OF THE CONTENT, unless such person on their own merit, and through their own legal qualifications, explicity endorses any part thereof. This is a community-based compilation of potentially useful information, resources, templates, etc. gathered in the spirit of "good samaritan" good faith. Please do not act on, refer to, or use any of this information unless you have gained endorsement from qualified counsel, or you accept full responsibility and liability for any such use.
Please distribute this link to as many as possible. This will be emailed to politicians and CPS workers everywhere. Contact Matthew J. Falkner for current results of the survey for your use: (262) 421-6248:
Children's Best Interests Survey
US DOJ Calls for Reports of Outrageous Custody Outcomes
When children are taken by the state without grounds for the termination of parental rights, it is among many other serious crimes, Title IV fraud, and should be reported to the HHS OIG tip line: 1-800-447-8477. More info in the link below. Info on standards for grounds is found here.
Group Rate Family Law Legal Workshop Or Contact: Family Law LC; Family Law LC Facebook; Attorney Eric Johnson (801) 450-0183; Matthew Falkner (262) 421-6248 Tentative Workgroup Pricing
Utah Demand for Investigation and Audit
Utah Demand for Oath of Office Compliance
Notice of Cause to Initiate Prosecution and Demand for Performance Utah Code 63G-7-401: (2) Any person having a claim against a governmental entity, or against its employee for an act or omission occurring during the performance of the employee's duties, within the scope of employment, or under color of authority shall file a written notice of claim with the entity before maintaining an action, regardless of whether or not the function giving rise to the claim is characterized as governmental....
THE CITIZEN'S RELIEF AGAINST INACTIVE FEDERAL OFFICIALS: CASE STUDIES IN MANDAMUS, ACTIONS "IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS," AND MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS
Fight CPS Handbook (someyhingforthepeople.com)
Family Reunification Act
78A-6-507. Grounds for termination of parental rights -- Findings regarding reasonable efforts
Utah Citizen's Grand Jury
Survival Advise
Class Action Claim Survey
Class Action Claims Summary
Community Leaders
Public Community Leaders
Utah Family Court Survey
Disqualifying Judges: In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
Fraud on The Court
Ethics in Government Act
Community Recommendations to Utah State DCFS Quality Improvement Committee 2013
Rules of Judicial Conduct (Emphasised to Remove Discretion Ambiguity)
Case Law on Prejudicial Application of Civil Process
Highlighted language from Utah code 62A-4a-201 [Rights of parents -- Children's rights -- Interest and responsibility of state]
Relevant Utah Code on Kinship Placement:
CPS Watch Legal Team
Task Force Study on Legal Disputes in Care, Custody, and Management of Children
The Ombudsman's office. You've probably never heard of them, but they have direct power drom the legislature to investigate DCFS. Total of three staff members though, so good luck. http://www.ocpo.utah.gov/
Pro Se Resources:
Documents: http://www.onyx401.info/sample-pleadings.htm Legal info:http://apps.americanbar.org/legalservices/delivery/downloads/prose_white_paper.pdf
Call Recorder App: You don't have this already? Record everything. Let them Incriminate Themselves, or protect yourself from false charges: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=polis.app.callrecorder Utah call
Recording Law: http://www.callrecordingcenter.com/utah-call-recording-law.php ACLU Resources. They won't help you with family law problems, but their resources list is good: http://www.acluutah.org/legalresources.htm
Rules Governing the DCFS Complaint Process: http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r512/r512-075.htm
Hold Them to Their own Standards - DCFS self inspection form for guideline compliance. https://www.facebook.com/notes/end-dcfs-corruption-in-utah/hold-them-to-their-own-standards/432348706847579
File a complaint about your judge. Utah Code of Judicial Conduct, and The Judicial Review Board http://jcc.utah.gov/code/index.html Need to find a utah law? http://le.utah.gov
Monday, January 6, 2014
Children's Best Interests Survey
Please distribute the link to as many as possible. This will be emailed to politicians and CPS workers everywhere.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/WMT2BQD
Monday, December 16, 2013
Abuse of Jurisdiction - Prejudicial Application of the Civil Process
If you think child abuse and child neglect are crimes, you're right. They are.
If you think victims and witnesses, particularly child victims of abuse, are afforded substantial rights and protections in the criminal process, you're right. They are.
If you think people accused of crimes have rights such as the presumption of innocence, the right to a speedy trial, the right to pay no fee to defend their rights, and the right to a jury trial, you're right. They do.
If you think the civil process should not be applied prejudicially to deprive those rights, the Supreme Court seems to agree...
U.S. Supreme Court BOYD v. U S, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) "If the government prosecutor elects to waive an indictment, and to file a civil information against the claimants,-that is, civil in form,-can he by this device take from the proceeding its criminal aspect and deprive the claimants of their immunities as citizens, and extort from them a production of their private papers, or, as an alternative, a confession of guilt? This cannot be. The information, though technically a civil proceeding, is in substance and effect a criminal one." "in a case like the present, he is entitled to all the privileges which appertain to a person who is prosecuted for a forfeiture of his property by reason of committing a criminal offense." "I am of opinion that this is a criminal case within the meaning of that clause of the fifth amendment to the contitution of the United States which declares that no person 'shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." "As showing the close relation between the civil and criminal proceedings on the same statute in such cases we may refer to the recent case of Coffey v. U. S., 116 U. S., S. C. ante, 432, in which we decided that an acquittal on a criminal information was a good plea in bar to a civil information for the forfeiture of goods, arising upon the same acts. As, therefore, suits for penalties and forfeitures, incurred by the commission of offenses against the law, are of this quasi criminal nature, we think that they are within the reason of criminal proceedings for all the purposes of the fourth amendment of the constitution,.." "Though the proceeding in question is divested of many of the aggravating incidents of actual search and seizure, yet, as before said, it contains their substance and essence, and effects their substantial purpose. It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be obsta principiis. We have no doubt that the legislative body is actuated by the same motives; but the vast accumulation of public business brought before it sometimes prevents it, on a first presentation, from noticing objections which become developed by time and the practical application of the objectionable law." "And any compulsory discovery by extorting the party's oath, or compelling the production of his [116 U.S. 616, 632] private books and papers, to convict him of crime, or to forfeit his property, is contrary to the principles of a free government. It is abhorrent to the instincts of an Englishman; it is abhorrent to the instincts of an American. It may suit the purposes of despotic power, but it cannot abide the pure atmosphere of political liberty and personal freedom." "This act abrogated and repealed the most objectionable part of the act of 1867, (which was then in force,) and deprived the government officers of the convenient method afforded by it for getting evidence in suits of forfeiture; and this is probably the reason why the fifth section of the act of 1874 was afterwards passed." "we have to deal with an act which expressly excludes criminal proceedings from its operation, (though embracing civil suits for penalties and forfeitures,) and with an information not technically a criminal proceeding, and neither, therefore, within the literal terms of the fifth amendment to the constitution any more than it is within the literal terms of the fourth. Does this relieve the proceedings or the law from being obnoxious to the prohibitions of either? We think not; we think they are within the spirit of both."
U.S. Supreme Court BOYD v. U S, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) "If the government prosecutor elects to waive an indictment, and to file a civil information against the claimants,-that is, civil in form,-can he by this device take from the proceeding its criminal aspect and deprive the claimants of their immunities as citizens, and extort from them a production of their private papers, or, as an alternative, a confession of guilt? This cannot be. The information, though technically a civil proceeding, is in substance and effect a criminal one." "in a case like the present, he is entitled to all the privileges which appertain to a person who is prosecuted for a forfeiture of his property by reason of committing a criminal offense." "I am of opinion that this is a criminal case within the meaning of that clause of the fifth amendment to the contitution of the United States which declares that no person 'shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." "As showing the close relation between the civil and criminal proceedings on the same statute in such cases we may refer to the recent case of Coffey v. U. S., 116 U. S., S. C. ante, 432, in which we decided that an acquittal on a criminal information was a good plea in bar to a civil information for the forfeiture of goods, arising upon the same acts. As, therefore, suits for penalties and forfeitures, incurred by the commission of offenses against the law, are of this quasi criminal nature, we think that they are within the reason of criminal proceedings for all the purposes of the fourth amendment of the constitution,.." "Though the proceeding in question is divested of many of the aggravating incidents of actual search and seizure, yet, as before said, it contains their substance and essence, and effects their substantial purpose. It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be obsta principiis. We have no doubt that the legislative body is actuated by the same motives; but the vast accumulation of public business brought before it sometimes prevents it, on a first presentation, from noticing objections which become developed by time and the practical application of the objectionable law." "And any compulsory discovery by extorting the party's oath, or compelling the production of his [116 U.S. 616, 632] private books and papers, to convict him of crime, or to forfeit his property, is contrary to the principles of a free government. It is abhorrent to the instincts of an Englishman; it is abhorrent to the instincts of an American. It may suit the purposes of despotic power, but it cannot abide the pure atmosphere of political liberty and personal freedom." "This act abrogated and repealed the most objectionable part of the act of 1867, (which was then in force,) and deprived the government officers of the convenient method afforded by it for getting evidence in suits of forfeiture; and this is probably the reason why the fifth section of the act of 1874 was afterwards passed." "we have to deal with an act which expressly excludes criminal proceedings from its operation, (though embracing civil suits for penalties and forfeitures,) and with an information not technically a criminal proceeding, and neither, therefore, within the literal terms of the fifth amendment to the constitution any more than it is within the literal terms of the fourth. Does this relieve the proceedings or the law from being obnoxious to the prohibitions of either? We think not; we think they are within the spirit of both."
Friday, December 6, 2013
They have us surrounded.
The structural failures giving rise to our claims are not exactly new discoveries. We may be pioneering by the scale of our lawsuit, but we really have nothing unique to add to the overwhelmingly defined problem. This has been done before. Well paid lawyers have given well made arguments, and high level courts have made high level rulings on them. It's plain to see that the long train of lawsuits, for better or worse, have led to where we are now, still pleading for relief from essentially the same systemic failures. We're surrounded by a culture of corruption built alongside historical failures to turn the tide. This might be altogether discouraging to some, but it shouldn't be. We live in the information age, so every past pleading and every past finding is free expert legal advice. Webster has written the dictionary so to speak, so we don't have to rewrite it to convince others by our own merits of the truths it establishes. It really simplifies everything. Of course, the metaphorical dictionary that defines the problems and failed remedies in family law, while written, has not been well compiled. We only need to put the pieces of the puzzle together to show the big picture to both the courts and the people. So, for those of you who want to help, but are unsure of how to do so, it’s simple: Google is free. We need as many links to as many news articles or other info on as many past relevant lawsuits we can find. Set this page as a bookmark, and post links as a
comment whenever you come across a useful past case to include.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Utah Initiative for Impeachment Accountability
Click here for full initiative text
Filed. 11/25/2013.
Shall the Utah State Legislature be prohibited from granting immunity to impeachment based on the resignation or retirement of an accused official?
Shall the Utah State Legislature be prohibited from establishing lesser, non-public alternatives to impeachment?
Shall the impeachment process in the State of Utah hold government officials at a higher standard than the criminal process for citizens?
Shall the State of Utah consistently maintain a constitutionally-derived, fair, reasonable, and effective impeachment process that guarantees equal and consistent protection to the People from any impeachable offense committed by any applicable government official?
Shall all impeachable officials in the State of Utah be held to equal standards, and to an equal process for impeachment?
Shall the impeachment process in the State of Utah be guaranteed to remain free of so-called "gag orders"?
Shall the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors or malfeasance in office” include personal misconduct in the discharge of a state officer's official duties?
Shall the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors or malfeasance in office” include neglect or dereliction in the discharge of the officer's official duties?
Shall the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors or malfeasance in office” include wrongful usurpation of power in the discharge of the officer's official duties?
Shall the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors or malfeasance in office” include habitual disregard for the public interest in the discharge of the officer's official duties?
Shall the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors or malfeasance in office” include the commission of an indictable criminal offense?
Shall the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors or malfeasance in office” include Intemperance in the use of intoxicating liquors or narcotics to such an extent in view of the dignity of the office and importance of its duties as unfits the officer for the discharge of such duties?
Shall the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors or malfeasance in office” include an intentional act or omission relating to the officer's official duties or under color thereof involving a substantial breach of trust?
Shall the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors or malfeasance in office” include willful compliance to conduct imposed upon the official by color of law or official authority that amounts to a substantial breach of trust that is of such a character as to offend against commonly accepted standards of honesty and morality?
Shall the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors or malfeasance in office” include any willful violation of any person or group’s constitutional rights?
Shall the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors or malfeasance in office” include willful defiance of superior law by or through lesser law?
Shall the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors or malfeasance in office” include any other meanings of "high crimes," "misdemeanors," or "malfeasance in office" that have existed historically and at common law?
Shall the current or former Attorney General John Swallow be held accountable to a full impeachment process?
Shall the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors or malfeasance in office” include any breach of the Oath of Office?
Shall all official Oaths of office in the State of Utah be considered to be waivers to any immunity for acts or omissions that defy such oaths?
Shall all official Oaths of office in the State of Utah be considered as barriers to any discretion claimed that would allow any act or omissions that defies the oath?
Shall all official Oaths of office in the State of Utah be considered as the contractual source of, and conditional means to maintain any and all government authority which is derived of the People?
Shall all official Oaths of office in the State of Utah be considered as prerequisites to any authority to impose government influence on a person's constitutional rights?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)