Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tips_and_tricks] 9th CIRCUIT RULES THAT PARENTS HAVE NO RIGHTS]

Expand Messages
  • jm367
    A 1939 Superior Court case in Arizona determined that children are wards of the State . ... These judicial determinations exist in all the States, I think.
    Message 1 of 6 , Nov 5, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      A 1939 Superior Court case in Arizona determined that “children are wards of the State”.
      ---------------------------------------
      These judicial determinations exist in all the States, I think.   They are due to the States accepting federal funds without repudiating the doctrine of parens patriae.   see title 15.   Your State Senator  was derelict.

    • lookin2c@juno.com
      Greetings, FYI - Way back in the late 80 s in Kalamazoo, Michigan a couple were being sued by the State s Family Independence Agency (What a LIE!) for custody
      Message 2 of 6 , Nov 6, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Greetings,
         
        FYI -
        Way back in the late 80's in Kalamazoo, Michigan a couple were being sued
        by the State's Family Independence Agency (What a LIE!) for custody of
        their children for, of all things, "home schooling". They were losing!
        At a break in the proceedings, the couple went down to the Registers Office
        and file an affidavit named: "Revocation of Signature on Marriage License Application".
        I do not remember the exact wording but they alleged "Fraud" [US v Throckmorton]
        among other items including "constructive fraud" wherein someone talks you into
        something you did not want to do. They then bought and paid for a "certified copy"   
        and returned to court. When the proceeding began again they presented the
        Judge with the certified copy and what happened next shocked the damn's
        State's Attorney so much he stated: "They Can't Do That!"
         
        What happened was the Judge stated into the Record: "This case is dismissed!"
        "We no longer have jurisdiction!"
         
        No! My memory does not go deeper into it! I cannot even remember the
        names of the couple! I too was shock at the "easy win" for "rights of the people"!
        Just remember... For Jurisdiction to exist there MUST BE A "NEXUS".

        Deo volente,
        Jim for FISH
         
        When someone who is honestly mistaken hears the truth,
        They will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest!
         
        On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 06:59:42 -0700 "Clare" <oim4jr@...> writes:

        A 1939 Superior Court case in Arizona determined that “children are wards of the State”.

        It said it didn’t matter if they were foster children, adopted or children born to the parents.

        The State could step in and take control any time.

         

         
      • hobot
        Interesting about the case withdrawing signature on Marriage license to eliminate state jurishdiction. Gleaning from many sources, seems orginally it was
        Message 3 of 6 , Nov 6, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Interesting about the case withdrawing signature
          on Marriage license to eliminate state jurishdiction.
          Gleaning from many sources, seems orginally it was
          illegal in American states to marry inter racially.
          Marriages were also solely religous or common law affairs.
          After Federal Aggression War conquered both the
          north and the south it created its own 14th Admendment
          colored[under law]persons. As there many births w/o
          a known father, provision was made to accept these
          as offical wards of gov't. It also allowed otherwise
          illegal inter race marriage.

          Don't know if marriage lic started at state levels
          or by federal mandate, please fill in my blanks.


          hobot
        • hobot
          I just wanted to note I did not write the brief below nor have knowledge to judge Alito but by the bad news recently revealed on this list. My header to notice
          Message 4 of 6 , Nov 6, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            I just wanted to note I did not write the brief below
            nor have knowledge to judge Alito but by the bad news
            recently revealed on this list. My header to notice list
            on this did not make the digital conversion transversion.
            It came to me as html block I couldn't disect apart.
            Peoples land grabed for profit and now childern as gov't
            property to control was sad news I was point of post.
            Implication - US citizen = Gov't issue.
            http://www.bartleby.com/61/82/I0258200.html

            hobot wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            > We need Judge Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court as fast as we can get him there. This week the infamous 9th Circuit Court ruled that, " ...parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools." At issue was a California school district's questionnaires to seven-years-olds asking them how often they think about sex and how many times they touch themselves. (Click here for WND story) During the John Roberts nomination fight Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) once said to me, "It is time for the Court to go back to being a court and not a legislature." This case exemplifies the need for the courts to judge individual cases and not make law. What would the authors of our Constitution say if they were to hear that a court could deny the right of any citizen to "due process?" The court in essence stated that parents do not even have a right to file a lawsuit on behalf of what they believe is right for their children.
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------------------------------------
            > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
            >
            > + Visit your group "tips_and_tricks" on the web.
            >
            > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
            >
            > ------------------------------------------------------------------
            >
            > ------------------------------------------------------------------
            > No virus found in this outgoing message.
            > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
            > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/161 - Release Date: 11/03/2005
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.