|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 20, 2009 15:23:56 GMT -5
The Honorable George Elected
United States Senator
7** Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
RE: CHILDREN'S RIGHTS
Dear Senator, or Representative . . . . . . .
I am contacting you as a children's rights advocate. After having personal experiences with the child welfare industry that has been created as a result of the federal funding of many programs intended to protect children that are administered through several administrative agencies such as Department of Health and Human Services, community mental health agencies and children's protective services that are often either the initiator's of court proceedings, or are involved directly from court appointments.
In the past if I would have listened to anyone attempt to tell me that these agencies and courts are rampant with fraud, corruption and official misconduct I would have thought these people to be crazy, disgruntled, misinformed or just plain nuts.
Since then I have become aware of considerable amount of case records, documentation and an abundance of evidence of this fraud and corruption which do include, Class Action Lawsuits, higher court decisions, hundreds of newspaper articles and United States Department of Justice investigations and convictions.
Unfortunately, one thing I have learned from my personal experiences is that for the most part any attempt to bring these issues and evidence to the attention of elected representatives can be compared to a dentist attempting to remove several teeth from a patient without the use of any painkillers, or novacaine.
I have found that there is an extreme amount of resistance in the legislature to even acknowledge that the taxpayers are funding this fraud, corruption, official misconduct and negligence. I very strongly suspect that the reason for this is that many of the agencies, individuals and professionals who profit at the expense of the taxpayer and the welfare of our nations children are also heavy contributors to the campaigns of the elected who pass the laws that promote this profit.
I also suspect that any elected legislator who does take a stance of these issues and acknowledge that there is a need to investigate this fraud, corruption, official misconduct and negligence in the child welfare system would be committing "political suicide."
From time to time the news media does indeed touch upon these issues and it is even more true that since the popularity of the Internet there is an abundance of web sites that cover many of these issues that the press appears to "back away from."
I also highly suspect that one of the main reasons there is not the level of public scrutiny these issues demand is that the majority of the population just is not directly affected by fraud, corruption, official misconduct and negligence in the child welfare system and the politician is actually personally better off not to acknowledge these problems and issues.
I have been praying, watching, waiting, and hoping for the day when those appointed, and elected,
individuals who have accepted the public trust realize that there is a need for "open public hearings" regarding fraud, corruption, official misconduct and negligence in the child welfare system on a State and more specifically on the Federal level and that congressional hearings would be most appropriate.
I am hoping that you, your staff, and your public office will be receptive to these issues as you perform your public services as a elected representative.
From time to time I would like to forward relevant information to your office for your review and keep you informed on issues you will be voting upon that will affect my personal welfare and the welfare of our nation's children.
As I very strongly believe it is only a matter of time when these issues cannot be ignored any longer and that there will be a time when these injustices will no longer be tolerated by this society for the truth is that these problems and issues are not going to go away and they are getting worse as time goes by and those agencies and people who are not being subjected to competent oversight and review are eventually going to be an embarrassment and an outrageous "black mark" in this nation's history when the public finally realizes the scope and extent of what the taxpayer has been funding in the name of child protection.
One particular and specific "case on point" can be found in a Michigan Court of Appeals decision that has recognized that Judges may appoint an expert witness who may fabricate, manufacture and destroy the welfare of a child in this process and do so with malice and still enjoy immunities for doing so, even if actually caught. I personally find it most outrageous that this decision by a Michigan court is not widely publicized and criticized for what our legal system has evolved to, or that people do not understand the legnth that courts will uphold immunities and the extent that these immunities are abused: [Quoted, in part, from Bielaska v Orley Michigan Court of Appeals decision dated February 9, 2001, COA Case Number 215287]
"Our Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the civil action, finding that summary disposition was warranted under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (8). Id. at 118. In that opinion, the Court explained the scope of the witness immunity doctrine in Michigan. The Court stated: [W]itnesses who testify during the course of judicial proceedings enjoy quasi-judicial immunity. This immunity is available to those serving in a quasi-judicial adjudicative capacity as well as "those persons other than judges without whom the judicial process could not function." Witnesses who are an integral part of the judicial process "are wholly immune from liability for the consequences of their testimony or related evaluations." Statements made during the course of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged, provided they are relevant, material, or pertinent to the issue being tried. Falsity or malice on the part of the witness does not abrogate the privilege."
There is a lot of information I would like to present to you so that you may realize that there is an abundance of credible and relaible information available with regards to these issues but then I would have to forward thousands of pages of documents to you and I know you do not have the time to review them. It has also been my previous experience that doing so more often than not is a waste of my postage, time and money.
It is my prayer and hope that someday our society, social services and the court system may actually work to protect our most precious resource, the children. The system currently protects the accuser, the prosecutor, with immunities and child welfare agencies further protection from disclosure as well as confidentiality laws that are often abused. The current system also protects the social worker and court appointed expert/therapist/evaluator from their own negligence with immunities. The child welfare system and laws affecting children gives the judge discretion and immunity from negligent decisions based on what is convenient for the court and not in the best interests of children.
When the current child protection laws are "corrected," to not only protect children from actual abuse situations, but to also protect children from negligent and incompetent social workers, psychologists, judges, and prosecutors, as well as many of the court appointed attorneys involved then we will have effective and just child protection laws.
Any law that can effectively protect children must also effectively acknowledge system abuse, incompetence, and negligence in order to protect children. If the government cannot, or will not, protect children from its own negligence and incompetence, then many of these children will not be protected and when this happens while the government intervenes in these cases the government and its many taxpayer funded agencies then becomes responsible for promoting the child abuse it presents to the public it intends to prevent. These children suffer the injustice and indifference promoted by those presumed to protect the best interests and the rights of children who profit from the current laws, procedures, and public policies.
Fraud, corruption, official misconduct and negligence in the child welfare system is not a popular subject with the elected or there would have been much more recognition of the problem and the issues by now. I can only hope that your awareness and intertest of these issues will make a difference and that children's rights will someday cease to be mere rhetoric and politics as usual.
I want to thank you for your valuable time by allowing me the opportunity to communicate with you on these issues and I pray that you will listen. I also want to thank you for considering that these issues are important to the needs and rights that our nation's children deserve.
Sincerely Yours,
_____________________
Concerned Citizen
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 20, 2009 15:27:50 GMT -5
Via Facsmile (INSERT FAX NUMBER)
SENATOR NAME
ADDRESS
Re: Amendment 4 to Senate Bill 276
Dear Senator __________________:
I am writing to voice my strong opposition to Amendment 4 to Senate Bill 276, and any future legislation including arbitrary caps on damages for those injured or killed by negligent doctors or hospitals.
The claim is that the frequency and severity of medical malpractice lawsuits in recent years has increased, thereby causing high malpractice insurance premiums, which in turn has reduced access to healthcare. The claim is that we will solve these problems if we take away the most important constitutional right of those harmed by medical malpractice, the right to full compensation, by setting an arbitrary cap on what a jury can award an injured patient. The facts do not support these claims.
Until someone is hurt or killed by malpractice, there can be no malpractice lawsuit. Medical malpractice is one of the leading causes of death and injury in this state.
On May 1, the Chicago Tribune, citing the National Practitioners Databank, reported that 5 percent of the doctors who have made malpractice payments over the last 15 years are responsible for almost one-third of the costs.
The same insurance companies and interest groups who want to take away patients’ rights have no suggestions about how to prevent medical malpractice. What is going to be done about the malpractice that understandably leads to lawsuits?
In the last five years in Illinois, the number of medical malpractice lawsuits filed each year has been about the same.
From 1999 through 2003, the number of claims paid by ISMIE in Cook, St. Clair, and Madison Counties has steadily decreased.
Since 1997, the annual total amount paid in claims by ISMIE has remained about the same. In 2004, ISMIE paid 10 percent less in total claims than it did in 2003. The average amount ISMIE paid on a claim in 2004 was 20 percent less than in 2003 and less than the average of $558,000 in 2002.
ISMIE insures about 14,000 doctors. At $150,000,000 per year in total claims, it is paying approximately $10,000 per ISMIE insured. But high risk specialists are paying as much as $250,000 for a year’s insurance. Does that make sense?
In recent years, while claims have been decreasing, the total amount of premiums collected by ISMIE has been increasing rapidly. In 2004, the difference between the amount of premium dollars taken in and the amount paid out in claims was about $270 million.
And in most cases, where does the "economic damage" award go? Not to the injured patient. The "economic" damages are not really the patient’s money. It goes back into the healthcare system and to insurance companies for past and future medical bills for surgeries, wheelchairs, medications, therapy, and prosthetic devices to repair as best as possible the damage caused by the malpractice of the doctors and hospitals.
The "non-economic" award is the patient’s money. "Non-economic" damages include not only compensation for pain and suffering but also for disability, disfigurement, and loss of society for the death of a family member. The doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies use "non-economic" as a euphemism for "not important." Amputees, persons who are blind or brain damaged, and widows and their young children would disagree.
The insurers claim that caps will lower malpractice premiums. But this is not true, as demonstrated throughout the country. Even if caps did lower premiums, ISMIE has said that a cap on damages would at best lower premiums 20 percent several years from now. But reducing the premiums 20 percent would not even reduce them to the level they were in 2002 before the huge rate increase in 2003 that supposedly caused the "crisis."
Access to healthcare has been raised as an issue in Illinois, with shortages of doctors, particularly specialists, being the subject of hysteria. But in 2001, the California Medical Association conducted a survey of 19,000 physicians who had had the protection of caps for 26 years. The Association found that many physicians were leaving the practice. Lower reimbursement, managed care hassles, and government regulation were the greatest sources of dissatisfaction. 43 percent of surveyed physicians planned to leave medical practice in the next three years. 58 percent of physicians had experienced difficulty attracting other physicians to join a practice. More than 25 percent of physicians had difficulty in recruiting doctors in various counties in California. Primary care, neurology, orthopedic surgery, and neurosurgery led in specialty shortages. More than one-fourth of physicians would no longer choose medicine as a career if starting over today, and more than one-third of those who would still choose medicine would not choose to practice in California.
In a letter written to the House Judiciary Committee this spring PIC-Wisconsin Insurance Company requested that the Illinois General Assembly require medical malpractice insurance companies to release the company-by-company actuarial data so that it would have a better opportunity to write new or more business in Illinois. But ISMIE opposes legislation that would do exactly that in Illinois. If ISMIE desires competition to reduce insurance rates, then why is it opposed to making public the individual company actuarial and closed claims data, as it is in almost every other state? And, yes, companies even use this data to undercut the premiums of existing insurance companies to the delight of doctors who pocket the savings. What a concept!
Illinois regulators have no authority to reject a rate increase in medical malpractice insurance, so long as there are at least two companies writing coverage in the State. Regulators also do not have any authority to reject a rate increase before it takes effect. Therefore, in 30 years, no rate increase by a medical malpractice insurer has ever been rejected. Maybe our insurance regulations need to change.
Please vote "NO" on Amendment 4 to Senate Bill 276 and vote yes on a separate bill instituting long-overdue insurance reforms.
Very truly yours,
NAME
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE NUMBER
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 20, 2009 15:30:50 GMT -5
(The Date)
The Honorable (Representatives Name)
Unites States House of Representatives/Senate
(The Representatives Address)
Dear (Insert Name),
I am writing in the hopes that the policies you support represent your constituents and not big corporations and lobbyists, the largest and most influential being the pharmaceutical industry. I am also writing to encourage you to support reform of drug industry financed research and clinical studies, FDA approval and drug safety oversight, and regulations regarding direct-to-consumer advertising in order to ensure that government and other institutions, which we rely on for non-biased factual information, act in the best interest of the patient.
The fact that 90% of clinical studies, 59% of the experts writing articles published in medical journals, 70% of continuing medical education, and 50% of the FDA’s budget to approve new drugs and oversee drug safety are funded by drug companies leads me to believe that mine and my families’ medical needs may be second to these big corporations’ financial interests. The fact that in the United States alone there are over 80,000 pharmaceutical sales representatives (one for every four doctors), and that companies spend over $30,000 per doctor each year on marketing makes me wonder whether I am actually receiving the best and most affordable medication for my ailment, or whether the medicines I’ve been prescribed were just the most aggressively advertised.
This is not a liberal or conservative issue, but rather a question of what is best for society. The fact that our health care is being compromised by this biased information makes this a bipartisan issue to restore confidence in medical knowledge. Until politicians from both sides of the aisle step up to the plate, change will not come. Until the public demands their politicians do so, the status quo will remain the same.
As a concerned citizen I am writing to demand accurate non-biased information regarding my health care.
Sincerely,
(Your Name)
(Your Phone, Email, or Address)
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 24, 2009 13:35:31 GMT -5
To: To: President George W. Bush, All Members of Congress, The Supreme Court of the United States RE: Non-Custodial Parental Rights I am writing to you to demand change on an epidemic that is destroying families, fathers, and children right here in Country. Simply put, the “Family Court” system as it now exists has stripped fathers of their rights to be a part of their children's lives. Instead, fathers have turned into financial pumps, living in constant fear of being dragged back into court by their ex-wives and victimized yet again. I could give you countless examples of fathers who have been victimized. I’m not referring to the “deadbeat dad” types who leave their ex-wives and children living in the streets. I am talking about hard working, tax paying, child-loving fathers who live for their children. The ones who had their children stripped from them for the simple reason of their ex-wife deciding that she just no longer wanted to be married. The ones who are allowed to see their children for 4 days a month. The ones who are allowed to see their children for a few weeks over the summer. The ones who are required to pay astronomical amounts of child support, often putting themselves in a situation where they barely can afford to live. These are the fathers that are relying on the judges, lawyers, and Legislators to help reform the system. This system has created a society of fatherless children and childless fathers. This system has created its own life through a judicial system that exists on misery to feed itself. This system violates their Constitutional Rights to Due process, Equal Protection under the Laws, and Privacy. I would like to call your attention to the February 25th, 2002 ruling by C. Dane Perkins, Superior Court Judge of the Georgia Alapaha Judicial Circuit. Judge Perkins declared the Georgia Child Support Guidelines (which were adopted guidelines from Wisconsin which almost all states use) void and unconstitutional in his ruling based on the above Constitutional Violations. Due Process The United States Constitution provides that NO State may “deprive any person of life, liberty or poverty without due process of law”. In almost all states, presumptive child support awards rise as a share of obligor (paying parent) income. NO child cost studies show child costs rising as a share of after-tax income. ALL child cost studies show child costs declining as a share of the after-tax income. In most cases, especially in higher income situations, the presumptive child support results in a significantly higher obligation than one bases on actual child costs that decline as a share of net income. In Parrett v. Parrett (1988, the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin), the court found that, particularly in higher income situations, the presumptive child support amount would “result in a figure so far beyond the child’s needs as to be irrational”. This is the very sort of result the Due Process clauses are designed to prevent. Equal Protection The United States Constitution provides that NO State may “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. The court found that “the egregiously different burdens placed on persons similarly situated but for the award of custody, i.e., parents with the obligation to support their child (ren) and the same means for doing so as when they were married” violates the guarantees of equal protection. Finding of Fact in the ruling further address this issue. Tax Benefits The court points out that custodial parents typically receive $200 to $350 per month in extra after-tax income just for having custody. These child-related tax benefits include Head of Household status, Child exemptions, child credits, childcare credits, and Earned Income credits. Wisconsin either does not include these credits in child support calculations or they are grossly understated. The court found that not sharing these child-related tax benefits violates equal protection. Financial Windfall The presumptive child care award typically results in the custodial parent receiving huge financial windfall (profit) well in excess of childcare costs. For typical income situations, the custodial parent ends up with a higher standard of living than the non-custodial parent. This is the case even when the non-custodial parent earns significantly more than the custodial parent. This represents an extraordinary benefit for the custodial parent and an extraordinary burden for the obligator. This violates equal protection. In addition, when combined with the tax benefits discussed above, the outcome is that the custodial parent does not contribute to the child costs at the same rate the non-custodial parent and, often, not at all. Hidden Alimony The court found that, in essence, the child support obligation amounted to hidden alimony. These “hidden alimony” amounts were so excessive that a non-custodial parent is oftentimes unable to provide for the child (ren) when in the non-custodial parents’ care to the same extent as in the custodial parent’s household. Presumptive awards have been shown to typically exceed total actual costs according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This violates equal protection standards for both the child and the non-custodial parent. In addition, this bias towards hidden alimony exists even when the custodial parent earns substantially higher income than the non-custodial parent. Low Income below Poverty Line The presumptive award for low-income obligators (minimum wage workers) pushes them below the poverty line. An award that leaves the obligator with less income than needed for basic needs creates an extraordinary burden. This violates equal protection. Privacy The source of the right to privacy has been held to originate in varying constitutional provisions. However, it has been long recognized to apply to “family” concerns whether the family exists within the confines of marriage or not. (Eisenstadt v. Baird (1973)). The court found that “by requiring the non-custodial parent to pay an amount in excess of those required to meet the child (rens’) basic needs...(the child support amount) impermissibly interfere(s) with parental decisions regarding financial expenditures on children. “The governments’ interest in family expenditures on children is limited to insuring that the child (rens) basic needs are met. Not extravagances, not luxuries, but needs. Once that occurs, government intrusion must cease (Moylan v. Moylan). In addition, the court found that the presumptive child support is so excessive that it forces non-custodial parents to frequently work extra jobs for basic needs. This creates an extraordinary burden for the obligor and, potentially, an additional burden on taxpayers. It is also distracting the non-custodial parent from parenting fully without justification. This violates equal protection. This is contrary both to public policy and common sense. Any government mandate beyond basic child costs interferes with the right to privacy. Equal Rights The Guidelines do not take into account the custodial parent’s income. The presumptive child support awards do not vary with family income--only obligor income. The custodial parent is not held to the same standard for contributing to child costs. In most cases, the custodial parent’s obligation of support ends up being largely or entirely paid by the non-custodial parent. The custodial parent’s income has no bearing on the amount of child support the non-custodial parent is ordered to pay. There is no formula in place that can determine how the custodial parent’s income affects the presumptive award. This is not economically rational and violates equal protection. Child costs of only the custodial parent are covered by the Guidelines. Costs incurred when the child (ren) is in the non-custodial parents’ care i.e. housing, food, clothing, entertainment and other needs for the child (ren) do not receive similar consideration. Yet, parents are similarly situated when child (ren) costs are incurred by either parent. Each parent has an equal duty to provide financially for the child (ren) when in the care of the other parent. These Guidelines where based on welfare situations in which the obligor parent was absent, and the custodial parent did not work and had no earned income, and did not take into account the custodial parent receiving large child- related tax benefits, and did not take into account the obligor paying substantial income taxes. However, in actual practice, typically the non-custodial parent is not absent and incurs substantial child costs that the Guidelines do not require the custodial parent to contribute. This violates equal protection and does not meet the financial needs of the child (ren) when they are in the care of the non-custodial parent. The Guidelines do not require that the custodial parent share in the costs of the non-custodial parent. The Guideline criteria for deviation do not give any guidance on how to apply the deviations in a consistent manner. This is unconstitutionally vague and generally results in no deviations in most cases, even when the circumstances to deviate exist. “We need to do more to make sure both parents are fully involved in the raising of their children, particularly fathers” - Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson October 22nd, 1999- Right here in our country, our homeland where we feel justified in wanting to raise our Child (ren) are we being stripped of our Constitutional Rights. We, as parents have a fundamental right to assume equal periods of placement of our children, unless there is credible evidence that a parent is not fit, that placement would be harmful to the child (ren). This right is fundamental; not that one parent must win as a result of lengthy, intrusive and costly legal battle, or compromised simply to reach a stipulated agreement to avoid a battle. The Due Process and Equal protection provision of the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution suggest the fundamental rights of both parents must be treated equally. It also points out “the constitution and the laws of the United States..... Shall be the supreme law of the land; and that judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding”. The courts responsibility to support these fundamental rights are further established; Every person Elected or appointed justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of appeals, judge of the circuit court or municipal judge, shall take, subscribe and file the following oath: “I,.... Do solemnly swear that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of.....” In practice, partly due to historical societal roles of parents and statistics on court rulings, there is an unwritten presumption that the mother gets custody and primary placement of the children and the father pays child support to the mother. While this presumption is not defined anywhere in the statutes, and is contrary to equality and the equal protection provision of the 14th amendment, it is very real. The net result is that the legal process treats a mother as innocent until proven guilty, and a father guilty until proven innocent. In light of this presumption, in cases involving two fit parents, the equal fundamental rights of the mother is usually fully supported, while the equal fundamental right of the father is subject to negotiation and compromise. As in many cases, fathers who merely want to fulfill their responsibilities to the child (ren) by providing for their care during equal periods of placement are often forced to accept 20-40\% placement or endure a lengthy, intrusive and costly legal battle. This violates the civil rights of those fathers who are encouraged, coerced or threatened to agree to stipulated agreements that deny them equal periods of placement against their will and denies the children the opportunity to an equally important relationship with their father. We are relying on our Courts to stop this egregious violation of Constitutional Rights and start giving us our rights back. We are relying on the courageous lawmakers to address this epidemic and stop the further deterioration of fathers, families, and children. Sincerely, Found at: www.petitiononline.com/usncpr/petition.html |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 10, 2010 15:48:15 GMT -5
Initiative Petition Sample
This will have to be reformatted of course and changed to suit your own state language and statutes, codes, etc. I'll add an attachment (word doc) to this post so you can download it and see exactly how it is formatted. Most of the stuff that needs to be changed to your own state is highlited, just double check everything before printing your final copy.
State Question No. _________ Initiative Petition No. _________
WARNING
IT IS A FELONY FOR ANYONE TO SIGN AN INITIATIVE OR REFERENDUM PETITION WITH ANY NAME OTHER THAN HIS OWN, OR KNOWINGLY TO SIGN HIS NAME MORE THAN ONCE FOR THE MEASURE, OR TO SIGN SUCH PETITION WHEN HE IS NOT A LEGAL VOTER.
INITIATIVE PETITION
To The Honorable Bill Ritter
Governor of Colorado
We, the undersigned legal voters of the State of Colorado, respectfully order that the following proposed amendment(s), provisions, and requests for establishment of language of law, within Titles 13, 14, 19, 24, and 26 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, shall be submitted to the legal voters of the State of Colorado for their approval or rejection at the regular general election (or such earlier special election as may be called by the Governor), to be held on the 2nd day of November, 2010, and each for himself/herself says: I have personally signed this petition; I am a legal voter in the State of Colorado, and my residence or post office are correctly written after my name. The time for filing this petition expires ninety days from June 13th, 2009. The question we herewith submit to our fellow voters is;
Shall the following proposed amendments, ratifications, renumbering, requests for establishment of language of law and provisions, within Titles 13, 14, 19, 24, and 26 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, all applicable Colorado Court rules, and/or all applicable amendments to the Colorado State Constitution , be approved?
BALLOT TITLE
This measure establishes, amends, ratifies, renumbers, and/or crates provisions within Titles 13, 14, 19, 24, and 26 of the Colorado Revised Statutes and/or all applicable Colorado Court rules, and/or all applicable amendments to the Colorado State Constitution. The measure, herein, calls for legislative action(s) and/or languages which will provide a clear definition of the “Best Interests of the Child”, where there is not, currently, a clear set of criteria which establish “Best Interests of the Child” in this state. The measure, additionally, calls to establish or amend Colorado Revised Statutes in such language as will subject an individual, State agency, affiliate organization, legal, medical, and mental health professional to criminal and/or civil penalties when unnecessary separation of a child and family, wrongful termination of parental - rights, fraudulent activities, or other defined actions/infractions are proven. Furthermore, the measure removes and replaces the “Clear and Convincing Evidence” rule in Juvenile Court proceedings, and establishes a language of law which promotes the importance of Familial bond.
This measure seeks to “overhaul” the current Colorado Department of Human Services system, re-engage and empower the citizens (both children and adults), of this state, and foster the ideal of community unity, sanctity of family, family union, unalienable civil and constitutional rights (for both parents and their children), while continuing to more properly protect the lives and interests of authentically - abused and/or neglected children.
SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED?
FOR THE PROPOSAL - YES
AGAINST THE PROPOSAL - NO
BE ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO THAT THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS, LANGUAGE OF LAW REQUESTS, RENUMERATIONS, AND/OR PROVISIONS BE APPROVED;
WHEREAS many have perceived that the PARENTS, CHILDREN, and OTHER CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF COLORADO have suffered egregious and obscene outrages, indignities, loss of affection, emotional trauma, economic loss, violations of unalienable civil, statutorial, and constitutional rights and liberties, unnecessary separation of family, and false imprisonment through false and wrongful child abuse, sexual abuse and/or child neglect allegations brought as a result of:
1. Malicious acts including, but not limited to: individuals who harass or duress a family through excessive and false child abuse and/or neglect: organized crime practices within judicial, child protection, mental health, and social work systems; and/or lack of appropriate protection of children who require intervention from either abuse and/or neglect within their families of origin, or abuse and/or neglect while under care and supervision of foster - families and Colorado Department of Human Services.
2. Arrogant, corrupt, under - qualified, vindictive, and/or malicious State agency personnel, individuals working as counselors, psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, legal and medical practitioners, who consistently violate unalienable civil, statutorial, and constitutional liberties under color of law.
3. counselors, psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, legal and medical practitioners, State Agency personnel who engage in fraudulent practices through use(s) of diagnostic tests which are manipulated to produce false positives in evaluations and child abuse, sexual abuse, and/or child neglect investigations; and
4. Judicial, Prosecutorial, Guardian Ad Litem, Public Defender, and Attorney misconduct in child abuse, sexual abuse, child neglect cases, and other family law proceedings.
We, the below signed CITIZENS OF COLORADO, petition to remedy these egregious and obscene outrages, indignities, loss of affection, emotional trauma, economic loss, violations of unalienable civil, statutorial, and constitutional rights and liberties, unnecessary separation of family, and false imprisonment through false and wrongful child abuse, sexual abuse and/or child neglect allegations, elements perceived as State - abetted extortion, and child exploitation by any and all means including but not limited to the following:
1. Establish, under all applicable Colorado Revised Statutes, the following criteria - based “definition of the best interest of the child”: For purposes of conducting child abuse, neglect, or molestation allegation investigations, in addition to child custody or adoption decision making, the “best interest of the child” shall mean “the least detrimental alternative objectively determined to have the lowest rate of per capita occurrences with regard to the following criterions and standards”;
1. deaths;
2. administrative inefficiency;
3. deprivation of affection;
4. disruption of constitutional and legal rights;
5. disruption of cultural continuity;
6. disruption of custody;
7. disruption of extended family relationships;
8. disruption of parental emotional relationship;
9. disruption of parental relationships;
10. disruption of religious affiliations;
11. disruption of social affiliations;
12. disruption of sustained emotional development;
13. disruption of sustained intellectual development;
14. disruption of sustained healthy physical development;
15. disruption of visitation;
16. economic exploitation;
17. emotional abuse;
18. emotional exploitation;
19. exploitation for criminal purposes;
20. false negative conclusion;
21. false positive conclusions;
22. fraud;
23. inaccurate records;
24. institutional abuse;
25. institutionalized abuse;
26. human experimentation;
27. legal/judicial exploitation;
28. nosocomial abuse;
29. human experimentation;
30. organized criminal activity;
31. parental abuse of legal processes;
32. parental alienation;
33. physical abuse;
34. science fraud;
35. unnecessary use of medication; and
36. use of the child as any form of leverage in disputes.
And that any individual, State Agency, and/or affiliate organization shall be subject to criminal and/or civil penalties for any deviation (intentional or unintentional) from this article.
1. Establish a provision, which will equally hold all parties involved in children’s proceedings accountable and subjected to criminal and/or civil penalties, for any action which violates a person’s unalienable constitutional, civil, or statutorial rights, and/or violates any of the criterions set forth in Article 1, sections 1-36 (Definition of the Best Interests of the Child) of this initiative petition, and/or the Bill of Rights for the Preservation of Families, without regard to social, financial, professional, or official position.
2. Establish criminal penalties for any, individual, State Agency, and/or affiliate organization who directly or indirectly encroaches upon a parent’s, child’s, or guardian’s, unalienable constitutional right to exercise visitation; except where detriment to the best interest of either party can be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law.
3. Protect children from exploitation, abuse, experimentation, and unnecessary medication and treatment by establishing the following language of law;
1. Criminal and/or civil penalties for any fraudulent practices of mental health, physical health, forensic, legal, social work practitioners, individual(s), and/or any State Agencies; where the care and treatment of a child is to be determined and/or is being provided.
4. Provide for the emotional and financial recovery of any parent and/or family who can establish that an allegation of abuse, neglect, or molestation, which subsequently leads to the unnecessary separation of that family, was false. Establish, under Colorado Revised Statutes, provisioning which ensures that this resource shall be available for retro active period not more than (10) years, beginning January 1, 2008.
1. Establish and maintain a “Victim’s Fund”, which will provide for therapeutic and other family services in addition to reparatory payments, for families who are proven to have been “unnecessarily separated” and, as a direct result, have been irreparably damaged with respect to the temporal, mental, and moral welfare of the parent(s) and child(ren).
5. Establish the following language under all applicable Colorado Revised Statutes;
1. “A child’s needs are best met by his/her own parent(s) except when otherwise determined by consideration of all criterions and standards as set forth in Section 1, subsections 1 - 36, of this initiative, and due process in a court of law”
2. All citizens shall be equally protected from abuse of individual, State Agency, and/or government power by criminalizing any acts which harass, molest, demoralize, alienate, or otherwise unnecessarily separate a family
6. Amend all applicable Colorado Revised Statutes as follows;
· Remove all “Prima Facie” privileges, currently exercised by any State Agency; Judicial, Law Enforcement Officer, Attorney, and/or any affiliated individuals or organizations; so that “Prima Facie” will no longer be recognized as an exercisable rule in any Family Court and/or Juvenile deprived proceedings.
· Any item submitted to a court of law as “evidence” (including but not limited to, sworn affidavits, amended affidavits, Statements of “Reasonable Efforts”, ect.) shall be submitted with credible supporting material(s) under penalty of perjury; and shall not be accepted for consideration of the court of law without said supporting material(s).
7. Amend all applicable Colorado Revised Statutes to remove the “Clear and Convincing Evidence” (preponderance of evidence in adjudicatory proceedings) rules, where all matters of Juvenile and/or Family Court Proceedings are concerned, and replace with the following;
Findings of fact and conclusion of law, Beyond Reasonable Doubt, as supported by physical evidence (including but not limited to: Medical, Psychological, Psychiatric, and Forensic Investigative sworn reports or affidavits which are certified and filed with the County Court Clerk’s office of the prevailing jurisdiction)”.
Provide additional provisioning, under this amendment, as follows:
a. Require that any Medical, Psychological, Psychiatric, Interrogative, State Agency, and/or Forensic investigations be carried out by a properly - credentialed, experienced, and thoroughly - trained Law Enforcement “Investigator” or “Detective”, who is NOT contracted by Colorado Department of Human Services. presence providing consult in a Social Services capacity only, and that any such investigative reports or findings acquired otherwise are to be deemed “inadmissible” in any Juvenile and/or Family Court proceeding(s), including, but not limited to, appellate proceedings.
b. Upon receipt of an abuse and/or neglect, a Colorado Department of Human Services. - Child Welfare Specialist shall respond to the report in question; and perform an “Assessment” only. During or after an “Assessment”, should the Colorado Department of Human Services. - Child Welfare Specialist shall immediately engage a “Child Abuse Response Team” “Investigator”, who shall serve in a capacity as defined Colorado Revised Statutes Title 19
c. In the event that the “Child Abuse Response Team” “Investigator(s)” determine(s), during or after the investigation, that probable cause for the determination of “imminent danger” exists, an Emergency Custody Order shall be filed, by the District Attorney’s Office, to the judicial authority of the prevailing jurisdiction requesting a warrant for the child(ren)’s removal.
d. In the event that the “Child Abuse Response Team” “Investigator(s)” determine(s), indicate that “Imminent Danger” does not exist; the Colorado Department of Human Services - Child Welfare Specialist shall immediately pursue Social Services intervention methods which do NOT include the separation of the family. Except in such cases where “Assessment” and/or “investigation” indicates that the report(s) / allegation(s) are “unfounded - services not needed”.
e. Any child - abuse and/or neglected investigation which is documented as “unfounded - services not needed”, or “founded” but has been “closed”, shall not be admissible as “evidence” against any parent or child during any juvenile - deprived or family court proceeding; and that any such action which is contrary to the above shall be deemed as grounds for immediate “motion for mistrial”, and that the juvenile - deprived or family court proceeding shall be halted, and the hearing dismissed, without prejudice, by the presiding judicial authority.
II. Families have a right to receive an objective “Assessment” of abuse and/or neglect allegations; and to not be irreparably traumatized, by separation of family members, when social services can be provided within the family’s home or place of sanctuary, in such situations where “Imminent Danger” has been determined to not exist; but providing social services to the family are determined, by and through such “Assessments”, to be of a greater benefit to the family.
III. Every effort shall be made to prevent the separation of families, except where sufficient evidence of “Imminent Danger” exists, during or after an investigation.
IV. “Imminent Risk” shall be fully revoked from Colorado Revised Statute, and replaced with a thoroughly - detailed definition of “Imminent Danger” which shall be adopted through cooperative community and legislative process, and strictly observed by every individual, State Agency and/or affiliate organization.
8. Establish under all applicable Colorado Revised Statutes, language of law which strictly prohibits “incentive - based” funding, “grant - payments”. or “bonus - payments” for any State Agency and/or affiliated organization; especially where such “incentives” are “metrics - dependent”, or would encourage any individual(s), State Agencies and/or affiliate organization(s), Medical, Psychiatric, Psychological, Legal, Law Enforcement, or Social Work professional(s) to engage in any fraudulent activity(ies) prior to, during, or after any child abuse/neglect investigations, Juvenile and/or Family Court proceedings.
9. Establish the following language under all applicable Colorado Revised Statutes;
I. “Permanency” shall, first and foremost, be defined as “reunification of child(ren) and family”; with “adoptive, “guardianship”, or “permanent Foster Care” placement to only be considered as a “no other recourse” alternative.
II. “No other recourse” shall be defined as the “verifiable exhaustion of all possible avenues of treatment in pursuit of the “Permanency” goal of reunification of the child(ren) and family”.
III. Any attempts to accelerate the termination of parental rights, and/or the “Foster Adopt” placement of a child/sibling group before termination of parental rights proceedings begin, shall be absolutely blocked. Except where the parent/guardian willfully relinquishes his/her their parental - rights, not withstanding any situation where parent and/child indicates that a parent, child, or sibling group have been coerced or were under duress at the time of relinquishment.
10. Establish, under Colorado Revised Statute, the following language;
I. Any child, who has been separated from hi/her family shall posses the incontestable right to challenge the separation, termination and/or relinquishment of their “familial bond”.
II. “Parental Rights” are to be incontestably recognized as element of “familial bond”.
III. Children, who have been separated from their families, have the incontestable right to receive a “challenge of ruling/action” hearing within 20 days of their request(s) for such action; that every child shall be thoroughly informed of this incontestable right; and there be no statute of limitations placed upon any child who acts under this article.
11. Renumber and ratify the following language C.R.S. 19 (Colorado Children’s Code);
“Provided, however, that nothing contained in this Act shall prohibit any parent, teacher or person from using ordinary force as means of discipline, including but not limited to spanking, switching or paddling.:
and attach the following sub - section to the aforementioned language;
I. During the course of treatment for any reunification plan, no State Agency, individual, or affiliate organization shall penalize the parent(s) for the use ordinary force as a means of discipline. So as to reinforce the ideals of “Parental Authority”, “Stability of family and community”, and positive direction and upbringing of the child(ren).
12. Establish the language of law, under all applicable Colorado Revised State Statutes, and/or make provisions to all applicable Colorado Court rules, and/or all applicable amendments to the Colorado State Constitution to include; under any amendment(s), statute(s), law(s); shall provide the following language;
Any parent, custodian, guardian, and/or child(ren); shall have an unalienable civil and constitutional right to due process, equal protection of the law, and an absolute constitutional right to a trial by a jury of his/her peers, in a court of law, for all “Termination of Parental Rights” proceeding(s).
Name and Address of Proponent(s):
Shauna D. Robinson
9490 E 106th Avenue
Henderson, CO 80640
(HERE FOLLOW (20) NUMBERED LINES FOR SIGNATURES)
State Question No. _________ Initiative Petition No. _________
Print Full Name Home Address Signature
1.)_________________________________________________________________________ 2.)__________________________________________________________________________3.)__________________________________________________________________________4.)__________________________________________________________________________5.)__________________________________________________________________________6.)__________________________________________________________________________7.)__________________________________________________________________________8.)__________________________________________________________________________9.)__________________________________________________________________________10.)_________________________________________________________________________11.)_________________________________________________________________________12.)_________________________________________________________________________13.)_________________________________________________________________________14.)_________________________________________________________________________15.)_________________________________________________________________________16.)_________________________________________________________________________17.)_________________________________________________________________________18.)_________________________________________________________________________
19.)_________________________________________________________________________
20.)_________________________________________________________________________
State Question No. _________ Initiative Petition No. _________
Print Full Name Home Address Signature
19.)_________________________________________________________________________20.)_________________________________________________________________________21.)_________________________________________________________________________22.)_________________________________________________________________________23.)_________________________________________________________________________24.)_________________________________________________________________________25.)_________________________________________________________________________26.)_________________________________________________________________________27.)_________________________________________________________________________28.)_________________________________________________________________________29.)_________________________________________________________________________30.)_________________________________________________________________________31.)_________________________________________________________________________32.)_________________________________________________________________________33.)_________________________________________________________________________34.)_________________________________________________________________________35.)_________________________________________________________________________36.)_________________________________________________________________________37.)_________________________________________________________________________38.)______________________________________________________________
|
|
