|
Post by Harrison on Nov 16, 2010 16:06:52 GMT -5
My 16 yr. old son lost interest in school and stated skipping. I talked to the school truancy officer and asked for her to inform the vice-principal so disciplinary steps could be started. Of course, nothing was done, till after more than 10 unexcused absences had accumulated. So now we await papers from the prosecutor to enforce the Becca law or compulsory attendance law. Here's were it gets interesting: A GED is about the only real defence against the up coming litigation. So why not just take him in and get the GED? Soooo glad you asked! In WA at least, your child 16-19 years must have the school principals signed permission before they can be tested. That's whether you agree or not and an audalt over 18 needing permission?, Hmmmm...... Any one want to help me pull the wings off this BS? I'll open with ethics, conflict of interest for 100 please Alex. (just an opener) Maybe clean hands doc.? Civil rights any one? Let's hear what you think. p.s. The boy does have a plan and just wants to get started with his life and he sees through the smoke and joke that is the school system.
|
|
|
Post by Harrison on Nov 18, 2010 13:48:46 GMT -5
Did a little R&R (reading and research) on RCW 28A.225. My guess is that most states are about the same due to the fed. mandate. So, I found that the school has pretty big list of duties and options they are obligated to do long before the absentees build to the point of petitioning the court. Things such as a conference with parent after 2nd UA ( unexcused absence). Any way I haven't been SERVED by registered mail or personal service (required) yet, but when I do I believe I'll have a couple of motions to file. Here are the 4 points the district or prosecutor must prove: 1) The student has 7 UA's in 1 month or 10 in a year. 2) The school notified the parents of UA. 3) The school scheduled a conference with parent that was reasonable for all. 4) The school took appropriate steps to eliminate or reduce the UA's At This point, they have us dead to rights on 1 & 2, but 3 & 4 never happened at all!!! So a motion to dismiss using the clean hands doctrine may be first after all why should we have to fallow a law they don't. On the plus side I can bury them (the court, PA and school)so deep in president there will be room for nothing else on their desk for a month. The next step I'm not sure about, because of this being in juvenile court. On the other hand he is still an acting superior court judge. Filing a motion directing the school to let my son take the GED. Why the school has the power to interfere with that is illegal on so many levels I'm not even sure were to start!?!?! I'd like to stop the "judge" from taking jurisdiction at ALL. Jim should have something here on that. more R&R!!!
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Nov 20, 2010 22:19:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Harrison on Nov 21, 2010 15:37:21 GMT -5
Thanks Jim!!!! the prosecutors office won this one for me!! RCW 28A.225.030(5) says service must be by registered mail return receipt required or personal service. Guess what I got via standard mail on Fri.? That's right improper service and grounds for dismissal and they haven't served Tom at all. They even named his mom in the suit. I'll bet everyone they drag into that court room was improperly served. I'm thinking about printing up a bunch of motions for dismissal and selling for 20 bucks a piece. That would burn the bench right to the ground and make my year!!! hahahaha
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Nov 22, 2010 13:11:26 GMT -5
Did you expect them to actually follow procedure or do anything right? LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Harrison on Nov 22, 2010 19:25:41 GMT -5
The reality is commissioner Adamson usually presides in truancy court and I fully expect him to either deny the dismissal or blow it off like it never excited. This is the same idiot that I had to appeal to superior court because he ordered me to pay $250 a mo. child support and I'm the custodial parent!!!! This is the moron a few years back that had us in truancy court when my son had a medical problem. Hell, I bet he'll try to bring up the past case to show how much more intrusive he and his cohorts need to be in our lives. I was going to make a motion directing the principle to let Tom take his GED, but reconsidered. It may be to much on one plate for this "judge" to understand, he has more than he can deal with disregarding state law. The term should be contempt of judge, cause that's all I have for him.
|
|
|
Post by Harrison on Nov 23, 2010 14:47:28 GMT -5
•Meyer v. State of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) •Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) •Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) •Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968) •Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) •Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974) •Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) •Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816 (1977) •Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (1978) •Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979) •Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) •Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993) •Washington v. Glucksburg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) •Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life.
- Meyer v. State of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations. - Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder. . . . It is in recognition of this that these decisions have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter. - Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The values of parental direction of the religious upbringing and education of their children in their early and formative years have a high place in our society. Even more markedly than in Prince, therefore, this case involves the fundamental interest of parents, as contrasted with that of the State, to guide the religious future and education of their children.
The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.
- Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. - Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our decisions establish that the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition. It is through the family that we inculcate and pass down many of our most cherished values, moral and cultural.
- Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The liberty interest in family privacy has its source, and its contours are ordinarily to be sought, not in state law, but in intrinsic human rights, as they have been understood in "this Nation's history and tradition."
- Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816 (1977)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have recognized on numerous occasions that the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected.
We have little doubt that the Due Process Clause would be offended "if a State were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family, over the objections of the parents and their children, without some showing of unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was thought to be in the children's best interest."
- Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (1978)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The law's concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life's difficult decisions. More important, historically it has recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children.
The statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition.
Simply because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child or because it involves risks does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state.
- Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State. Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain a vital interest in preventing the irretrievable destruction of their family life. Until the State proves parental unfitness, the child and his parents share a vital interest in preventing erroneous termination of their natural relationship.
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The best interests of the child," a venerable phrase familiar from divorce proceedings, is a proper and feasible criterion for making the decision as to which of two parents will be accorded custody. But it is not traditionally the sole criterion-much less the sole constitutional criterion-for other, less narrowly channeled judgments involving children, where their interests conflict in varying degrees with the interests of others. "The best interests of the child" is not the legal standard that governs parents' or guardians' exercise of their custody: So long as certain minimum requirements of child care are met, the interests of the child may be subordinated to the interests of other children, or indeed even to the interests of the parents or guardians themselves.
- Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights . . . to direct the education and upbringing of one's children. The Fourteenth Amendment "forbids the government to infringe ... 'fundamental' liberty interests of all, no matter what process is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest."
- Washington v. Glucksburg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The liberty interest at issue in this case-the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children-is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court. In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.
The problem here is not that the Washington Superior Court intervened, but that when it did so, it gave no special weight at all to Granville's determination of her daughters' best interests. More importantly, it appears that the Superior Court applied exactly the opposite presumption. The Due Process Clause does not permit a State to infringe on the fundamental right of parents to make childrearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a 'better' decision could be made.
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Dec 3, 2010 12:06:30 GMT -5
Great post and information Harrison!
|
|
|
Post by Harrison on Dec 3, 2010 17:26:04 GMT -5
Thanks, Earlier this week I filled out our motion of dismissal and after waiting for their time to elapse on proper service I went and filed. Then straight to the prosecutors office, where I politely asked to see the school rep. The receptionist ask why? I replied "I have some papers for him." Then she ask can I see? With some hesitation I gave her the motion. (knowing I had extra just in case) She looked it over carefully and asked me to have a seat. Why I asked? She replied "Well, you asked to see him." After about 10 mins. she returned and out popped Mr. Whitehead (no joke) He introduced him self with motion in hand and I said "I see you have the papers." as he glanced down and noticed the clerks stamp. "Oh, you've filed this already" he said like I was there for chit chat or negotiations of some kind. "Well yeah" I replied "I just wanted to make sure you got them." Quickly fallowed by a loud "You've been served!" He rolled his eyes, turned opened the door and walked away. How rude!!!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!! We don't negotiate with terrorists Under authority I listed court rules CR 12(b)(4) CR12(b)(5) , RCW 28A.225.030(5) , 5th & 14th amendments US constitution , and the clean hands doctrine. I'm sure they don't know how many laws and such I have used to kick they're ass, but now they know how many I'm gonna use!!!!!!!!!! Next Fri. is the hearing. THE question is how lawful is the so called judge? Hell, I even did his job and the order is ready for him to sign.
|
|
|
Post by Harrison on Dec 11, 2010 0:05:18 GMT -5
WOW!!!!!!!!Today was fucked. WE didn't even see a judge. But we have a new heirig date.HNNNNNNNh
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Dec 11, 2010 12:21:05 GMT -5
They'll probably make you an offer lol?
|
|
|
Post by Harrison on Dec 11, 2010 13:50:09 GMT -5
I'LL SETTAL FOR MY MOTION TO BE HEARD AND THE PROPER RESALT. ZERO TALORANCE... WE DON'T NAGOCIATE WITH TERRORIST!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Dec 12, 2010 12:49:38 GMT -5
I'LL SETTAL FOR MY MOTION TO BE HEARD AND THE PROPER RESALT. ZERO TALORANCE... WE DON'T NAGOCIATE WITH TERRORIST!!!!!!!! Find out whats going on and get a step ahead of them again, they are trying to throw you off tract and get a foothold against you, your motion must of "caught their attention"
|
|
|
Post by Harrison on Dec 12, 2010 18:16:48 GMT -5
I beat them, they know it and are trying to pass it off as a clerical error. It's a shame when that constitution gets in the way. after Fri. I think I'll file a suit against the prosecutors office for lack of our due process rights. I've looked and looked there's nothing like this any were
|
|
|
Post by Harrison on Dec 15, 2010 15:27:29 GMT -5
I filed a new motion todayIn re: Shelton School District
Petitioner(s), And Harrison Blevins/Linda Geary, Thomas Blevins
Respondent(s). No. 10701656
Motion for Order re: Dismissal (Optional use) (MT) I. Relief Requested _________________________Harrison Blevins [Name of party] moves the court for an order re: ___________________________Of dismissal_________________ granting the following relief [explain what you want the court to order]: We would ask to court to dismiss case No. 10701656 for a lack of jurisprudence. . II. Statement of Facts/Statement of Grounds [Clearly and briefly state the facts upon which you base your case. Print or type.] On Dec. 10, 2010 the respondents came to the Mason count court house to be heard on a previous motion. The date of hearing was changed without notice and equal protection . Service of process was attempted on this case still awaiting to have a motion heard. In the second attempt at legal service of process or lack of, Linda Geary and Thomas Blevins were not served at all, and the respondents were denied their right to be heard I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed at ___________Shelton_____, [City] ______WA____ [State] on __Dec. 14,2010_______ [Date]. Harrison Blevins Signature of Moving Party or Lawyer/WSBA No. Print or Type Name III. Statement of Issues/Argument [Clearly and briefly state the legal issues you want the court to decide. Print or type.] Neither Linda Geary or Thomas Blevins were issued due process of service or notification of any change of hearing. The change in hearing happened without the respondents right to be heard on the matter and uphold their equal protection of rights. Service of process was wrongfully enacted on Harrison Blevins due to their right to have the motion before the bench heard.. . IV. Evidence Relied Upon [Clearly identify the evidence you want the judge to consider with your motion. Print or type.] 1. Declaration of: Harrison Blevins, The coinciding dates on the summons and notice of hearings with A lack of appearance of the respondents on record before the bench. Lack of return of service receipt for Linda Geary and Thomas Blevins. . V. Legal Authority [Cite the legal authority you rely upon. Print or type.] 5th and 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution, CR 12(b)(4), CR 12(b)(5), RCW 28A.225.030(5), CR55, CR 41(b), CR 56(c), CR 1, (un)clean hands doctrine . VI. Proposed Order
[ ] A proposed Order accompanies this motion.
Date:_____________Dec.14, 2010 __________ Signature of Moving Party or Lawyer/WSBA No. Harrison Blevins Print or type name 972w little Egypt rd Shelton WA 98584 Address
|
|