How to Handle CPS ?
CPS will ask you various questions most of which they have no right to ask. Demand documentation for any thing they bring up. Be polite just do not volunteer anything, choose your words carefully, do not allow them to twist anything you say into other words you did not say. If they do not offer to tape record the interview refuse to be interviewed and if they do tape record the interview let them know in advance that you insist on a copy of the tape or take your own tape recorder with you. Make sure to state on the tape that you are taping the session with their knowledge and have them say they know they are being taped. State the date and time on the tape before any questions are asked and any answers are given. If you can afford it take an attorney with you or at least a witness. Stand up for yourself. If you feel the need to stop the interview then say so and suggest a continuance time and date. Once you know where they are going you may need time to get documentation to back you up. Do not let them bully you or threaten you in any way. Keep your cool; they love to try to rattle you. And above all admit to nothing, make them prove every point or dismiss the issue. Demand copies of all paperwork. Insist they write you a statement as to what they agree to do regarding copies of anything. Set time limits for their response. Take notes, very careful notes. Do not let them rush you, accept no excuses and do not show fear. If you have done nothing wrong then act like you have done nothing wrong.

If CPS comes to your home without a warrant,

Do NOT let them in, Call us or your attorney first.

No one can enter your home without a warrant, no matter the threat, Police, Sheriff or caseworkers.
They  MUST have a warrant. This is your constitutional and civil right, NO ONE can violate that.

CPS has destroyed the families of this country , they need to be held accountable .

Our local, state and federal government has taken away our rights, They need to be held accountable.

Our Justice System is failing us, They need to be held accountable.

Send letters, emails and make calls, Hold them ACCOUNTABLE !

We elected them, We can fire them...

June 27, 2008
Coming Soon !

Title IV-D, The destruction of the family....Christmas in June

Why is Lee County Calling in case workers from other counties to finish the case loads ?

Beware- A case is to be completed within 45 days and can remain open for 1 year, DCF will violate this process.
They will come to your home and bully and threaten you, Call your Attorney immediately and inform them, the case worker will refuse to talk to the attorney and will threaten to call local police, Follow your attorney's advice.....

If you have nothing to hide, talk to your attorney about filing harassment by DCF/CPS, Call supervisors and always keep a paper, audio and video trail.


 

 Though the challenge relative caretakers undertake equals that of any foster parent, they are paid about half as much by the state to care for their grandchildren when the parents can’t or won’t.

Cookie Coleman, director of the Department of Children and Families in Circuit 20, said the influx is likely because of the decreasing age of parents and an increasing use of drugs — issues compounded by a sluggish economy.

This means the child welfare system as a whole will be supporting more grandparents, she said.

“We know many of these grandparents are struggling themselves and need financial help to provide for their grandchildren,” she said.

 If a child has never been in the family welfare system, payment to a relative caregiver is even less — a maximum of $180 per child, or 63 percent less than licensed foster parents, who average about $482 per child monthly.

“That’s a disgrace,” Kat Gray said. “It’s like they’re taking advantage because they know we would take in these kids no matter what.”

Lee Circuit Judge James Seals, who presides over matters of family custody, said the goal is to reunite children with their parents. When that isn’t possible, many grandparents and relatives step up.

“I know they are given a subsidy, but if it’s from the state of Florida, it’s probably inadequate,” he said. “That’s historical and national.”

In May, the state paid $171,894 for 679 children who were being cared for by a grandparent or relative in the circuit. By comparison, it paid $181,686 for the 381 children who were living with licensed foster families.

05/31/08

I need to send a special Thank You out to my friend Rob, Without you, I would of never made it.

I can't express the feelings that overwhelms me of all those who brought me here, I can't say enough to you guys, You have been there from the start of And Justice 4 All and you all made me the Strong and determined person I am today. So many I want to mention but you know who you are and that I Thank you all so very much. Yes, even N.P

MBS 05/31/08 @ 6:14am





06/01/08

Is this fair ? How would you like it if this was your child ?   

Across elementary schools nationwide, when the bell rings, kids tear out of the building like nobody’s business.

It’s so great to go home.

One particular afternoon, a couple of Florida kids wished the bell had never rung.

Moments before dismissal, the school administrator had come across a neighborhood mom distributing pictures of their dad to parents waiting for their kids.

The dad is a registered sex offender. His photo–and the family address–is listed for all to see on the Florida Sex Offender registry.

Although the pictures were confiscated, the damage was done.

These children face public hostility, fear, and loathing, parental unemployment, loss of their home, break-up of their families, threats, harassment, property damage and social exclusion every single day.

Friendships are hard to come by when parents won’t allow their children over at that house.

The event described occurred in my local community–the Space Coast of Florida, home of NASA, a place where one would think most residents are fairly educated.

Are sex offender laws protecting all kids…or just some kids–and what about the kids of those forced to register? Are they dispensable?

I’ve made my decision.

The collateral damage–the toll of ostracism endured by family members as a consequence of over-expansive community notification laws–is governmental child abuse.

Get educated on just how these laws are destroying young lives across this country. But cold hard facts don’t do it for some people, so let’s make collateral damage personal.

Read the unedited letter below, written by an elementary school child who grew up to have a voice?

Will he be heard?

Will Governor Crist listen?

Dear Governor Crist:

I am now 15, enduring worsening hardship with each passing year. I thought by now, as with all other ex-felon families, that all of this would be behind us and I could enjoy life as a normal teenager. But, my father was arrested while going to work because the police thought that he had not registered a temporary address. He was in fact registered at our home, but the police wouldn’t listen. So to keep him out of jail for even more undeserved years in that overcrowded hellhole, my mother had to use the families last $2000 to bail him out of jail and are still paying for the attorney, to keep him out of prison.
And now, when things were starting to look up, what happens? 5 days before Christmas, he is arrested again while going to work, because of a suspiciously deliberate administrative screw up by the state of New Jersey and they are threatening to extradite him back to New Jersey, when they new all along my father was legally registered as a resident of Florida (for the past 3-1/2 years).

This means many things for my family. My mother will almost guaranteed- die- beauce of her heart condition, that non one seems to care about , my brother will fail 6th grade, and we will probably never, and if we do it will be in many, many years, see my father again. He will miss my mothers passing away, my brothers and my first girlfriend, our high school graduation, our college graduation, and maybe even our marriages.

I’m sure the father’s of our Constitution (yes, I am an honor student at a school of choice- learning about this not-so great country) could not have envisioned the law’s of today. Yet, please, uphold what they set forth and understand my mother, brother and I have lost our civil rights to privacy, etcetera, because of the out of control sex offender laws.

Thank you for your time and I hope, clemency, for my father. We need him back!!

Christopher William P. (for privacy sake- if there is such a thing in my life?)

UPDATE: 06/27/08

* FINALLY, ASK THE CASEWORKER TO EXPLAIN TO YOU WHAT TITLE IV-D IS....

If the Counties are getting incentive money to pull children out of their home and placing them in Foster care home and the county is offering incentive money to the foster caregivers but actually don’t, and the county isn’t doing anything to restore the family, Then where is the incentive money that is giving to the county ?????????

Title IV-D has caused much corruption in the family, and juvenile court system.

Below you will find some interesting facts about Title IV-D sections 666 and Title 42 social security act. Please educate yourself on this title as it could be the reason why you are paying child support and only visiting your children every other weekend. It could also be the reason why your parental rights have been severed and your child has been placed up for adoption.

Your state and county gets incentives for destroying American Families.

The below judge just severed a mothers rights a client of FSF just this week all rights to her 4 year old son. Our research director discovered that this very county of RIVERSIDE received over $600,000.00 in one month alone for placing foster children into adoption status.

1. Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 651 et seq., authorizes the provision of funds to States to promote efforts to locate absent parents, establish paternity, and enforce child and spousal support obligations. 42 U.S.C. 651, 655(a) (2) (C) and (3) (B). In 1988, Congress amended Title IV-D through enactment of the Family Support Act, Pub. L. No. 100-485, 102 Stat. 2343. The amendment requires participating States to operate automated data processing and information retrieval systems. § 123, 102 Stat. 2352. Originally, the States had until October 1, 1995 to establish an automated system, but that deadline was later extended to October 1, 1997. 42 U.S.C. 654(24). The federal government contributes from 66% to 90% of the funding for automated systems. See 42 U.S.C. 655(a) (3) (A) (1994).

In 1996, Congress further amended Title IV-D through enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, Pub. L. No. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105. The 1996 Act requires each participating State to establish a case registry, a directory of new hires, and a statewide disbursement unit (SDU). 42 U.S.C. 654(27) and (28), 654a (e). States were required to establish and operate an SDU by October 1, 1998, or, in the case of a State that distributed support through the courts, October 1, 1999. See 42 U.S.C. 654(27); Pub. L. No. 104-193, § 312(d), 110 Stat. 2105. The purpose of the SDU requirement is to enable States to distribute support payments in a timely manner. 42 U.S.C. 654b.

2. As a condition of receiving federal funds under Title IV-D, a State must have an approved "state plan" that meets the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 654. See 42 U.S.C. 655(a) (1) (A). In order to obtain approval of its Title IV-D Plan, a State must establish an automated system and an SDU. 42 U.S.C. 654(24) and (27) (A).

The existence of a valid Title IV-D plan is also a prerequisite for funding under Title IV-A of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 601 et seq., which makes block grants available to the States to assist needy families. Congress linked funding under Title IV-A to the existence of a valid Title IV-D plan because of the relationship between the two programs: collecting child support may allow families to avoid the need for, or reduce their dependence on, welfare. Accordingly, disapproval of a State’s IV-D plan could ultimately result, after notice, in the withholding of funds under Title IV-A as well as Title IV-D. See 42 U.S.C. 602(a) (2), 603.

In 1998, Congress enacted the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act, Pub. L. No. 105-200, 112 Stat. 645. That Act provides "for an alternative penalty procedure for States that fail to meet Federal child support data processing requirements." 112 Stat. 645. In 1999, Congress instituted the alternative penalty scheme for SDU non-compliance. See District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-113, Div. B, § 1000(a) (4), 113 Stat. 1535.

Under the alternative penalty procedure, a State that has failed to comply with the automated system and SDU requirements may receive a reduced penalty if (1) the Secretary determines that the State is making a good faith effort to comply with program requirements, and (2) the State has submitted to the Secretary a "corrective compliance plan." 42 U.S.C. 655(a) (4) (A) (i) (automated system) and (5) (A) (i) (SDU). The alternative penalty scheme imposes relatively modest, graduated financial penalties depending on how long the State remains out of compliance. See 42 U.S.C. 655(a)(4)(B) (providing for a penalty for the first year of 4% of Title IV-D funds paid to the State at the 66% rate during the prior year; 8% for the second year; 16% for the third year; 25% for the fourth year; and 30% for the fifth and any subsequent year).

3. South Carolina accepts federal funds under Title IV-D and Title IV-A, but it has failed to comply with Title IV-D’s automated system and SDU requirements. Pet. App. A3, A15. South Carolina initially elected to incur the alternative penalty for failure to comply with the SDU requirement. Id. at A15. South Carolina later elected the alternative penalty for failure to comply with the automated system requirement. Id. at A3.

The Governor of South Carolina and other state officials (petitioners) filed suit in federal district court seeking, inter alias, a declaration that Title IV-D’s automated system and SDU requirements exceed Congress’s spending power and violate the Tenth Amendment. Pet. App. A15-A16 n.5. The district court rejected petitioners’ claims and granted summary judgment to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Id. at A10-A59.

4. The court of appeals affirmed. Pet. App. A1-A7. Applying the analysis set forth in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), the court held that Title IV-D falls within Congress’s power under the Spending Clause and does not violate the Tenth Amendment. Pet. App. A4-A6.

The court of appeals determined that Congress had acted in pursuit of the general welfare by making a "considered judgment" that the public would "benefit significantly from the enhanced enforcement of child-support decrees" and the reduction in the ability of parents to "avoid their obligations simply by moving across local or state lines." Pet. App. A4 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court also held that Title IV-D’s automated system and SDU requirements are unambiguous, enabling States to make choices "knowingly, cognizant of the consequences of [their] participation." Ibid. The court further ruled that the automated system and SDU conditions are related to Congress’s goal of "efficient child support enforcement" and the "broader goal of providing assistance to needy families through the [Title IV-A] program." Id. at A5. Finally, the court noted that petitioners made no contention that Title IV-D induces States to violate any independent constitutional prohibition. Ibid.

The court of appeals rejected petitioners’ contention that Title IV-D’s requirements are so coercive that they violate the Tenth Amendment. Pet. App. A5-A6. The court reasoned that the alternative penalties "would result in the loss of a small fraction of the State’s [Tile IV-A] funds," and "such a proportion was non coercive." Id. at A6. The court concluded that "[g]given the linkages between child support enforcement and aid to needy families and the level of the alternative penalty," Title IV-D requirements are consistent with the Tenth Amendment. Ibid.

Based on the plain language of Title IV-D’s penalty provisions, the court of appeals rejected petitioners’ contention that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has discretion to deviate from the alternative penalty structure. Pet. App. A6-A7. Finally, the court of appeals refused to consider petitioners’ due process claim on the ground that "this contention was never properly presented to the district court." Id. at A7 n.3.

DISCUSSION

The court of appeals’ decision is correct, and it does not conflict with any decision of this Court or any other court of appeals. The only other court of appeals to consider the constitutionality of Title IV-D’s funding conditions has upheld them under the Spending Clause. Kansas v. United States, 214 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1035 (2000). Further review is therefore unwarranted.

1. Petitioners contend (Pet. 8-18) that Title IV-D’s automated system and SDU requirements exceed Congress’s power under the Spending Clause. That contention is without merit.

The Constitution authorizes Congress to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, Cl. 1. "Incident to this power, Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds, and has repeatedly employed the power ’to further broad policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal moneys upon compliance by the recipient with federal statutory and administrative directives.’" South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 206 (1987) (quoting Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 474 (1980) (opinion of Burger, C.J.)); see New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 167 (1992).

The Court in Dole identified four limitations on Congress’s spending power. First, by its terms, the Spending Clause requires that Congress legislate in pursuit of "’the general welfare.’" Dole, 483 U.S. at 207 (quoting U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, Cl. 1). Second, if Congress conditions the States’ receipt of federal funds, it "must do so unambiguously * * *, enabl[ing] the States to exercise their choice knowingly, cognizant of the consequence of their participation." Ibid. Third, this Court’s cases "have suggested (without significant elaboration) that conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated ’to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.’" Ibid. (citation omitted). And fourth, Congress may not seek to induce States to violate any independent constitutional prohibition. Id. at 208.

As the court of appeals concluded (Pet. App. A4-A7), Title IV-D does not exceed those limitations. See Kansas, 214 F.3d at 1199-1201. As the court explained, Congress made a considered judgment that enforcement of child-support decrees furthers the general welfare; Title IV-D clearly and unambiguously imposes the automated-system and SDU requirements as funding conditions; those requirements are related to the goals of efficient child-support enforcement and reducing dependence on welfare; and there is no claim that those conditions induce States to violate any independent constitutional prohibition. Pet. App. A4-A5.

Petitioners argue (Pet. 9-11) that the court of appeals erred in failing to evaluate the entire factual situation with a heightened level of scrutiny. The court of appeals, however, applied precisely the level of scrutiny required by this Court’s decision in Dole. Pet. App. A4-A5. Petitioners offer no support for their view that a different analysis is required.

Petitioners suggest (Pet. 11) that Congress may not establish conditions on federal funding in areas of traditional state concern. But this Court’s precedents make clear that Congress may act under the Spending Clause even when the Tenth Amendment might bar it from regulating a state activity directly. See, e.g., Dole, 483 U.S. at 210-211; Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 917-918 (1997); New York, 505 U.S. at 174-176. As this Court reaffirmed in Dole, a "perceived Tenth Amendment limitation on congressional regulation of state affairs [does] not concomitantly limit the range of conditions legitimately placed on federal grants." 483 U.S. at 210. Indeed, "[r]requiring States to honor the obligations voluntarily assumed as a condition of federal funding * * * simply does not intrude on their sovereignty." Bell v. New Jersey, 461 U.S. 773, 790 (1983).

2. Petitioners contend (Pet. 11-13) that Title IV’s conditions on federal funding are fatally ambiguous because HHS did not promulgate regulations "explaining the functionality required in the automated system" until June 1993, after States had "accepted funding tied to the automated system requirement." Pet. 12. But Title IV-D itself clearly required that States operate an automated system. It also provided detailed specifications for that system. 42 U.S.C. 654(24); 42 U.S.C. 654(16) (A)-(E) (1994). Ambiguities in the proper "scope and interpretation" of a clear condition on funding that are later clarified through regulation do not raise any issue under the Spending Clause. Central Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Comm’n v. Pena, 113 F.3d 1468, 1475 (7th Cir. 1997); American Hosp. Ass’n v. Schweiker, 721 F.2d 170, 183 (7th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 958 (1984); see Illinois Dept of Pub. Aid v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 428, 433 (7th Cir. 1990). In any event, HHS promulgated its regulations several years prior to the deadline for States to comply with the automated-system requirement, and South Carolina was free to choose to discontinue Title IV funding at any time. See 45 C.F.R. 307.10.

Petitioners similarly err in contending (Pet. 13) that Title IV’s requirements create ambiguity because States could not know about the automated-system and SDU conditions when they first began accepting Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) funds 60 years ago, or when they began their federally-assisted child support programs. Under that theory, Congress would be powerless to amend any Spending Clause enactment without violating Dole’s requirement that Congress condition the States’ receipt of federal funds unambiguously. That theory finds no support in this Court’s cases. To the contrary, this Court has consistently upheld Congress’s authority to impose conditions-including new conditions-on the future receipt of funds under previously enacted programs furnishing federal financial assistance. See Dole, 483 U.S. at 206; King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 325-326, 333 n.34 (1968). To the extent that a State does not wish to abide by a new condition, it may simply refuse to accept any further funding.

Petitioners’ contention (Pet. 12) that Title IV’s waiver provisions create impermissible ambiguity is equally merit less. Title IV authorizes waiver of the automated system requirement only if the State shows that it "has or can develop an alternative system" that meets the functional requirements of the statewide system and equals its success in child support collection. 42 U.S.C. 652(d) (3) (A). That requirement is unambiguous. Nor does 42 U.S.C. 666(d) advance petitioners’ argument. That Section applies only to the Secretary’s discretion to exempt States from "the enactment of any law or the use of any procedure" required by section 666 itself; it does not apply to the automated-system or SDU requirements that appear in Section 654. 42 U.S.C. 666(d).

3. Petitioners argue (Pet. 14-16) that there is not a sufficient relationship between Title IV’s conditions on funding and a federal interest. That argument is without merit. "[W]whereas about 30 percent of child support cases are interstate cases, only 10 percent of collections are from interstate cases." H.R. Rep. No. 651, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 1405 (1996). There is plainly a distinct federal interest in facilitating interstate collection efforts. Equally important, collecting child support directly furthers the strong federal interest in reducing the dependency of families on the Title IV-A welfare program, and in enabling families who are not receiving assistance under Title IV-A from having to do so in the future. See Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 333 (1997); cf. Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S. 587, 598-601 (1987).

4. Petitioners further contend (Pet. 16-18) that Title IV’s conditions on funding are impermissible coercive, and that the court of appeals erred by analyzing the alleged coercive effect of the Title IV conditions "solely from the standpoint of the alternative penalty." Pet. 16. That contention lacks merit. Because States may be eligible for the alternative penalty, and South Carolina obtained that option, the court of appeals correctly focused on the alternative penalty in rejecting petitioners’ coercion claim.

In any event, even absent the alternative minimum penalty, Title IV-D’s funding scheme would be constitutional. See Kansas, 214 F.3d at 1201-1202 (holding that Congress may condition Title IV-A and Title IV-D funds on States’ compliance with Title IV-D conditions). This Court in Dole observed that its decisions "have recognized that in some circumstances the financial inducement offered by Congress might be so coercive as to pass the point at which ’pressure turns into compulsion.’" Dole, 483 U.S. at 211 (quoting Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 590 (1937)). But the Court did not suggest that Congress lacks authority to place relevant conditions on the receipt of federal funds whenever the value of the federal offer is too tempting to decline. To the contrary, the only case the Dole Court cited for the proposition that an offer of federal funding might amount to "coercion" was Steward Machine Co., a decision that expressed doubt about the viability of such a theory. See 301 U.S. at 590 (finding no undue influence even "assumed[ing] that such a concept can ever be applied with fitness to the relations between state and nation").

Indeed, the courts of appeals have noted the problems inherent in applying a coercion theory. See, e.g., Kansas v. United States, 214 F.3d at 1202; Texas v. United States, 106 F.3d 661, 666 (5th Cir. 1997); California v. United States, 104 F.3d 1086, 1092 (9th Cir. 1997); Oklahoma v. Schweiker, 655 F.2d 401, 413-414 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Every congressional spending statute "’is in some measure a temptation.’" Dole, 483 U.S. at 211 (quoting Steward Machine Co., 301 U.S. at 589). For that reason, "’to hold that motive or temptation is equivalent to coercion is to plunge the law in endless difficulties.’" Ibid. (quoting Steward Machine Co., 301 U.S. at 589-590). This Court thus reaffirmed the assumption, founded on "’a robust common sense,’" that the States voluntarily exercise their power of choice when they accept the conditions attached to their acceptance of federal funds. Ibid. (quoting Steward Machine Co., 301 U.S. at 590).

That principle is controlling here. The possibility of losing Title IV-D and Title IV-A funds, or, as in South Carolina’s case, facing a much more modest alternative penalty, is not unconstitutional coercion. Like all other States, South Carolina retains "the simple expedient of not yielding to what she urges is federal coercion." Dole, 483 U.S. at 210 (internal quotation marks omitted). A "difficult choice remains a choice, and a tempting offer is still but an offer." Kansas v. United States, 214 F.3d at 1203.

5. Petitioners’ remaining arguments-that HHS has discretion to waive or amend the alternative penalty, and those petitioners preserved their due process claim-fall outside the questions presented. See Pet i. accordingly, those arguments are not properly presented here.

In any event, those arguments fail to warrant this Court’s review. The court of appeals correctly held that the Secretary of HHS lacks discretion either to "waive or amend the alternative penalty for noncompliance." Pet. App. A6. The text of the Act is mandatory; HHS has no discretion regarding what constitutes compliance with the automated-system and SDU requirements. See 42 U.S.C. 654(16) and (24) (A); 42 U.S.C. 654a (State "shall have in operation" automated system); 42 U.S.C. 654b (a) (State agency "must establish and operate" SDU). Nor does the Secretary have discretion to waive or amend the alternative penalty: If the State is not in compliance and the State requests the alternative penalty and satisfies the section’s good faith and corrective compliance requirements, the Secretary "shall not disapprove the State plan under section 654," and instead "shall reduce the amount otherwise payable to the State." 42 U.S.C. 655(a) (4) (A) (i) and (5) (A) (i). By creating the alternative penalty scheme, Congress unambiguously identified the only sanction short of disapproval and suspension for which non-complying States are eligible.

Finally, the court of appeals’ conclusion in a footnote (Pet. App. A7 n.3) that the State waived its due process argument is the type of fact bound determination that does not warrant this Court’s review. In any event, the State has no authority to bring a due process claim on behalf of its citizens as parent’s patria. See Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 485-486 (1923).

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.

Respectfully submitted.

THEODORE B. OLSON
Solicitor General
ROBERT D. MCCALLUM, JR.
Assistant Attorney General
MARK B. STERN
STEPHANIE R. MARCUS
Attorneys

Treason, and Title IV-D
Category: News and Politics

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PAY STATE INCENTIVES, STATE PAYS COUNTY INCENTIVES BASED ON NEED. COUNTY CREATES NEED FOR MONEY...

PURPOSE OF INCENTIVE:

TO REMOVE CHILDREN FROM DANGER.

TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO PARENTS TO KEEP THE FAMILY WHOLE.

TO FIND SAFE HOUSING FOR CHILDREN IN DANGER.

TO PAY FOSTER PARENTS TO KEEP CHILDREN SAFE AND BASIC NEEDS.

WHO DETERMINES DANGER ?

THE CASEWORKER, NOT A JUDGE...

WE HAVE 2 KINDS OF CASEWORKERS

1- CARES TO MUCH AND HANDS ARE TIED BY LAW and CASELOADS.

2- CARES TO LITTLE AND WOULD RATHER ACT AND DESTROY A FAMILY.

IN MY OPINION:

We have to many false allegation calls for personal means that are taking up the caseworkers time, this causes the worker to be over loaded with cases, making it impossible for full attention to those who really need it.

CPS has a overload of cases that are not prioritized, this has cause the death of several children this year alone, while all cases must be investigated, that time is needed for urgent calls. CHILDREN are dying , while caseworkers are investigating false allegation calls. CHILDREN who have had caseworkers come repeatedly with positive proof of abuse are left with the abuser. Example: Kelsy Briggs, over 100 calls, broken bones and bruises. Her caseworker left her home 4 hours before she was killed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWow42TCwzg

Kelsey Briggs is what started And Justice 4 All in 2005

In memory of all the angels lost due to child abuse !

_____________________________________________

UPDATED: 06/22/08

Former California Gubernatorial Candidate Makes a Bid for Sheriff of Lee County Citing Illegal Activities of His Opponent.

From:

PR Newswire

Date:

May 30, 2008

More results for:

christian meister pr-newswire COPYRIGHT 2008 PR Newswire Association LLC. This material is published under license from the publisher through the Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan. All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Gale Group.

FORT MYERS, Fla., May 30 /PRNewswire/ -- Vowing to reveal why his opponent is unfit to represent the residents of Florida, a former California gubernatorial candidate will announce his candidacy for sheriff of Lee County on Saturday, May 31, at 2 p.m. at the Matlacha Oyster House on 3930 Pine Island Road, in Matlacha, FL 33993. Christian Meister, 39, who ran for governor in the California 2003 Special Election against Arnold Schwarzenegger, stated that incumbent Sheriff Mike Scott is not fit to be the people's sheriff because Scott has violated the very principles of what a law enforcement agency ought to stand for.

This is an update on Nancy Jo Grant, Of Arcadia Florida, incarcerated in the Desoto County jail, since February 19th, 2008, for violation of probation.....it can be used as a PRESS RELEASE should any one care to write something on Nancy's behalf, or add to this information, other than myself.

I just received a letter from Nancy, it was sort of a combination of letters over a few days, so I will just hit on the highlights....

Montgomery Sibley asked Nancy if she wanted to sue the authorities involved in her case, she told him yes....

She has refilled a new Habeas Corpus, but no response, she has filed a motion for hearing to serve the remainder of her sentence time on house arrest, no response....however, since she signed up for trustee, she has been issued new uniforms, and had been moved from her private cell into one with 5 other women.

She told of the loud foul mouthed women who passed through the jail, and other things, Nancy said she was an outcast, because she walks with Jesus Christ, but she is fine, she said she would rather have Jesus as a room mate, she just stays by off by herself, when inside, or outside, for exercise, and doesn't care that the others treat her as an outcast, because she does not want to act like them, or be friends with them, because of the way they talk and behave.

In one of her prior letters, she informed me that the guards are not mean or disrespectful of her, and many have actually offered their support of what she is trying to do, and feel she has been wronged, and admire her for her courage in standing up to the system.

The sheriff, Vernon Keen continues to be in violation of his oath of office, after being served with Nancy's writ of Habeas Corpus, and his failure to respond.

She says she will receive 5 days a month credit for her signing up for trustee, she was excited about getting out around July 8th or 9th, but then her son found on her sheet, that is on DOC list, that her release date is July 1st....so she will be out by June 30, after midnight, at 12:01 AM, or before.

Nancy seems to be in good spirits, she says the time is fading and she is sleeping well, she stays warm at night, and because of the poor quality of the food in the jail she has lost weight, and for her this is a plus. She relayed that she was grateful for the time she spent in a cell alone, because she was spared the exposure to the diseases, and lice that some of the women were infected with.

"Dave Aronberg" <aronberg.dave.web@flsenate.gov>, "Assistance" <assistance@aclufl.org>, "George Bush" <comments@whitehouse.gov>, "Dick Chenny" <vice_president@whitehouse.gov>, "Lee county commissioners" <questions@leegov.com>, "City Council" <council@capecoral.net>, "Florida Courts" <publicinformation@flcourts.org>, "Charlie Crist" <charlie.crist@eog.myflorida.com>, "FDLE" <info@fdle.state.fl.us>, "Eric Feichthaler" <efeichthaler@capecoral.net>, "Randall B. McGruther" <rmcgruther@sao.cjis20.org>, "DOC Public affairs" <publicaffairs@mail.dc.state.fl.us>, pulse-for-justice@earthlink.net, "Steve Russel" <StateAttorney@sao.cjis20.org>, "Stephen B. Russell" <srussell@sao.cjis20.org>, "Burt Saunders" <saunders.burt.web@flsenate.gov>, "Mike Scott" <MScott@sheriffleefl.org>, sexpred@fdle.state.fl.us, tampa.division@ic.fbi.gov, "Jack Thompson" <amendmentone@comcast.net>, usafls-citizencompla@usdoj.gov, "Mathew Visaggio" <mathew.visaggio@myfloridahouse.gov>, washington.field@ic.fbi.gov

Please only send letters or emails to
Gary Aubuchon via Matt Visaggio, do not call the local Lee County office, Matt doesn't like to help people, he gets very upset and tell you ;" He's hanging up now "

Gary, you really need nicer people representing you in your home town. Bad PR, Matt needs a vacation or charm school.

mathew.visaggio@myfloridahouse.gov

_______________________________

Updated: May 26, 2008

As you have noticed , I bash our local news paper and media for not reporting truth, What I haven't told you is that I also need to Thank them for all the calls and emails I receive from people in some kind of need, Because of the paper, I have been able or tired my best to assist people without any form of advertising or cost. This has been to my advantage and to many others.

COMING SOON :

Starting this week, I will be updating this site often, I will be posting all the people who have come forward with issues that they want made public, You will be updated with stories from Local to State from your neighbors, People that have begged for help from the justice system, people who have a victim of the justice system. Some of it may be brief or extremely lengthly, However it will Truth with supported documentation to back it up.

So here is your chance, Do you have a story you want public ? Are you willing to come forward, prove your case and let people all over the country read what is happening here in Lee County or Florida ?

Send me emails with your story and documents you want published here, No manes will be published if it is a open case or at your request.

Our first story will be about sexual predators in our neighborhood, After posting , You can go to the guest book and speak your opinion, I will warn you, it may be graphic and very detailed including statements and discovery on these cases.

This means that what you see here now will be deleted or moved for space reasons until I upgrade to more pages.

______________________________

May 6, 2008

Since I started this site back in February 2008, I have received several emails from others with the same concerns. Together we have managed to get the US attorney and the FBI involved and will hopefully make head way with corruption in the justice system.

We have seen Judges retire or resign before the investigation is complete, Attorneys drop cases that they know are dirty, not to be involved...All in All, we are making a difference.

I have added a new link that will really get your attention in regards to Lee County Florida, Please check this one out.

I have received documented proof from inmates, former inmates and Correction Officers (CO's)concerning the Lee County Jail are their violations, along with the Cape Coral Police Department (CCPD) and the Lee County Sheriff Department (LCSO).

_______________________________

February 2008

I am a victim of the corruption in the State of Florida! The State attorney’s office and the entire Justice system is corrupted, our local and county law enforcement do not follow their own policies and procedures, The Public defenders works for the state and not the defendants and at the end of the day victims are defendants.

We have the buddy system here and no one is being held accountable for their actions. Elected Officials are violating our civil and constitutional rights and refuse to be addressed by the citizens. Call and letters with vague responses and never answers or advice.

I started court watching when my son was in the system as victim who became the defendant. I have seen and heard things that just didn’t sit well with me that were appalling and I started to ask questions. Those questions make things horrific on my son, and now recently 3/26/08 my daughter. She filed a Domestic Violence and Sexual Battery on her former husband to be who is a LCSO deputy, Since then no charges of any of his violations per the injunction have been brought against him.

No arrest, Fake investigations with no findings, When if it was the average resident they would be sitting in jail.

This is called Officer Involved Domestic Violence (OIDV), There is a code of silence behind the badge and the blue wall. Our elected Sheriff Mike Scott is aware of this problem and has done nothing, Internal affairs protects the deputies and not the citizens or victims.

___________________________________
February 2008

So why am I here?

Two Million people, a full quarter of the world’s incarcerated population, are in U.S Prisons and Jails.

I started a my space account and began to make very valuable friends, found awesome resources and found that I could make a difference along with others who have the same issues, questions and concerns about today’s society.. For more information on blogs I have written your welcome to go to: http://www.myspace.com/karma4all

I Began doing a lot of research on the State department of corrections, As I would find more statics's and information, I began to make calls to Tallahassee, I found it very odd that everyone transferred me to different department and no one had current information or answers for me, everyone blamed someone else.

Now, this is what I need answers to: Why is the Lee county court system behind and 73% of the inmates are still waiting for trials or even to be charged with a crime, Why is the State Attorney motioning to strike the inmates demands for Speedy trials which is a US Constitutional right? Why are the Judges saying they are to backed up and yet they put huge, unrealistic bonds on people or denial the right to pre-trial release under Florida Statuses 907.04 and 907.041,Pre-trial release would cost the accused $40.00 a month supervision fee, However by keeping them incarcerated at $52.06 a day per inmate at taxpayers expense, The Lee county jails are over cohabited to the point that some of the inmates are sleeping on the floors and in boats, the last inmate statistical count was back in January 2007 and that time we had 1985 inmates, that totals $103,339.10 a day of tax payers money , based on a 30 day month we are paying $3,100,173.00 a month and that is going off of January’s stats.

According to the state: Lee county has one of the highest amount of inmates waiting to be charged or set for trial, They claim that this is the Judges fault, The Judges claim it’s the Law enforcement and the State Attorneys fault, as for me I am as just as confused as you are right now.

So who is at fault? I would like for one person to answer all the questions, stop passing me around like the hot potatoes, take the responsibility of why we are paying for the courts and jails to be over crowded and a lot of the current inmate population is there because they couldn’t afford bond, haven’t been charge with a crime or charged with bogus offenses just to keep them in the system and the system is in violation of Florida Status 907.045 when arraignments are more than 45 after the date of arrest, Lets face it here, everything is a felony, it like Gestapo not police and that if they even show up. So let imagine how many more inmates are currently in our jails and the cost factor.Currently as May 2008 we have 2500 inmates.

Can we stop destroying people families until they are found guilty? For a county that doesn’t report crimes on the news, we have a lot of people living in our jails and we are paying their rent, and could they at least supply them underwear….

Lee county has violated so many Status and Constitutions, that they need to be fined and investigated, We need to clean house and start over.

I can find these on line and the attorneys walk around the halls with text books and say hardly anything when before the Judges, The inmates go back to jail for another paid day of boarding by us. They are refused medical attention forms, endure violating civil human rights, and the mentally ill are pepper sprayed instead of medicated.

The visitors are treated like inmates and they do not even have physical contact, everything is on a video monitored computer screen, so why do they search the visitors, and cut the visitation times or not at all. We paid for state of the art computer equipment for the visitors and most of the time they don’t work, We have to send commissary money for the inmates to buy underwear and shirts at price gouging cost of $60.00 a week and the inmate receives $28.00 of that to shop with. Where is our $103,339.10 a day going? This is where we found racketeering in the jail, they do shake downs , confiscate the items and then resell them .

Petition sites :

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-corruption-in-lee-county-florida

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-judicial-corruption-and-repeal-judicial-immunty

I have been receiving letters from inmates in both county and state prisons and I have to tell you that although they commented crimes, the humanity of their treatment is unbelievable to me. To the guards in the prisons it’s a game to violate and mistreat them in such demeaning ways that when these people get out they have mental disorders called Bared Cage syndromes or cannot adjust to society and end up back in the system.

Many states have rights for the inmates and their families. Our state does not have any such thing in place. During my research I found that the children of inmates are the most effected, they lose that bond with the parent because of the lack of personal touch, a large percentage of children with incarcerated parents suffer social behavior problem, poor performance in school, attachment disorders and many of them follow the parent’s footsteps to the system.

The inmate has committed crimes, which was their choice with consequences, but their children are the victims of their mistakes. The children are the ones who suffer; we need a State funded program that would correct this. This program would be beneficial to both the institutions and the families involved. My proposal to the State of Florida for funding is that following the examples of the foundations that are available in other States, passes a bill, for a non-profit organization I call; TOUCH.

.

To read more of the research done or for more information on the TOUCH foundation proposal, Please contact me at; comments2marian @yahoo.com

Two Million people, a full quarter of the world’s incarcerated population, are in U.S Prisons and Jails.

~2007~

This was quoted by Charlie Green and Kelly Worchester in July 2007


From January to June 2007 , 1505 felony cases ended in forced pleas and 49 went to trial while 5856 misdemeanor cases ended in forced pleas and 45 went to trial according to Charlie Green Clerk of Courts for Lee county.

Kelly Worcester of the Felony head of the State Attorneys office said " It's all strategy , it's a dance and most defendants know that "

That is 99% of the cases end with forced pleas

YOUR CALLS AND LETTERS ARE WELCOMED, Go to Contact Us for all updated information...

Joke for the day !

A couple walked into the Lee County court house on 6/12/08, a guard runs up the escalator and said " Hey do you have any weapons on you ? "

Good Security !and he was a LCSO deputy.

_____________________