So - hold up - the ISTTF reported the internet's quite safe these days. So, what did these other two politicians do? They promoted free wire-tapping and forcing ISP's to keep permanent IP records of everyone. The consequences? IP records DON'T identify a person (go ahead google that phrase and see what you find). However, based on false information that is being presented to Congress - stop - go back - re-read "FALSE INFORMATION" - Congress must pass a law. Based on the presentation of the FBI to Congress that there is a risk of data loss if hard drives are given to defense, forensic experts, Congress must pass a law. Where's the "two-sides," to these arguments? Where's the Constitutionality? Well.. on that matter... I digress. Because, what's important here is evidence that "intelligence" sources have and ARE continuing to misrepresent data to Congress, falsely, and are causing laws to be irrationally initiated. So, where does the President/ex-Senator fit in? Mr. Obama claims his place of infamy in the "Protect Our Children First Act," which expanded upon the Adam Walsh Acts I & II, and further supported DHS' continuing removal of children from homes - even where children were never harmed, were quite safe and happy - and placing them into homes where they are lost, afraid and oft times are raped or abused (and in rare instances murdered).

State of Oregon
District Attorneys Mission Statement
The mission of the Oregon District Attorney is to uphold the United States Constitution and the Constitution and laws of the State of Oregon, to preserve the safety of the public, to protect the rights of crime victims and to pursue justice for all citizens with skill, honor and integrity.
(excerpt from http://www.odaa.state.or.us/mission.htm)

Excerpts from The Constitution of The United States of America, as quoted by the District Attorney's office, to be the FIRST doctrine that they exist to uphold:

(note - thanks to Steve Mount at http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html for the Constitutional references):

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. (Ratified 12/15/1791.)

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Let us examine the role of a Grand Jury:

The first instance of a grand jury can be traced back to the Assize of Clarendon, an 1166 act of Henry II of England. In fact, Henry's chief contribution to the development of the English monarchy was to increase the jurisdiction of the royal courts at the expense of the feudal courts. Itinerant justices on regular circuits were sent out once each year to enforce the "King's Peace." To make this system of royal criminal justice more effective, Henry employed the method of inquest used by William the Conqueror in the Domesday Book. In each shire a body of important men were sworn (jure) to report to the sheriff all crimes committed since the last session of the circuit court. Thus originated the modern grand jury that presents information for an indictment. The grand jury was later recognized by King John in the Magna Carta in 1215 on demand of the nobility. (are we recalling the first post, in which I clearly explained that part of the Constitution’s purpose was to no longer follow European traditions?)

Early in U.S. history, the grand jury served to screen out incompetent or malicious prosecutions. The advent of official public prosecutors in the later decades of the 19th century largely displaced private prosecutions, but also led to their capturing grand juries and using them in ways for which they were not originally intended. But, is the practice of a Grand Jury today, still at as much risk for corruption as they were back then? Grand juries are today virtually unknown outside the United States. England abandoned grand juries in 1933 and instead uses a committal procedure, as do all Australian jurisdictions. New Zealand abolished them in 1961 and Canada in the 1970’s.

In fact, only HALF of the States in our Union use Grand Juries. Yes – HALF. What does that mean? That means, that the U.S. is NOT using the fair and equal standard across the Country, meant to Form a MORE PERFECT UNION, as the justice system has slowly come to realize the corrupt and unconstitutional nature of grand juries. – Slowly – As it is, the “other” half of the U.S. relies upon preliminary hearings in which Judges are allowed to be presented with ALL of the evidence, from BOTH sides – to ensure fairness and accuracy of the issues. Where Grand Juries do exist, such as it is in Oregon – the one sided argument – from Law enforcement AND the DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S office (the ever-scrupulous bastions of fairness and hope.. right?), before dragging you into Court – and sometimes – JAILING you – without your even knowing that ANYTHING was going on!!

A grand jury is meant to be part of the system of checks and balances, preventing a case from going to trial on a prosecutor's bare word. A prosecutor must convince the grand jury, as an impartial panel of ordinary citizens that there exists reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or a prima facie case that a crime has been committed. The grand jury can compel witnesses to testify before them. Unlike the trial itself, the grand jury's proceedings are secret; the defendant and his or her counsel are generally not present for other witnesses' testimony. (a special thanks to Wikipedia, for this information – and references YOU can follow up on to find more arguments defining the unconstituionality of the Grand Jury process).

I won’t even waste the time in this argument to discuss the Double Jeopardy clause, except to say this: the TENS OF THOUSANDS of arguments, in our Judicial system against this practice, is reminiscent of what I said in regards to the Fourth Amendment violations by the District Attorneys- they are NOT upholding the principals of the Constitution as they claim – but are fighting them to their own benefit (see Findlaw for even more, detailed explanations).

''It is now the settled doctrine of this Court that the Due Process Clause embodies a system of rights based on moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society as conceived by our whole history. Due Process is that which comports with the deepest notions of what is fair and right and just.'' (Justice Frankfurter)

Standing by itself, the phrase ''due process'' would seem to refer solely and simply to procedure, to process in court, and therefore to be so limited that ''due process of law'' would be what the legislative branch enacted it to be. But that is not the interpretation which has been placed on the term. ''It is manifest that it was not left to the legislative power to enact any process which might be devised. The article is a restraint on the legislative as well as on the executive and judicial powers of the government, and cannot be so construed as to leave congress free to make any process 'due process of law' by its mere will.'' (Lessee v. Hoboken) Let us begin by examining the more recent, “Adam Wash Act.”

On December 7, 2006, in U.S. v. Crowell, Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio held that the Adam Walsh Act's requirement that specific pretrial release conditions be imposed on all defendants accused of certain crimes violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Bail Clause, and separation of powers. So, the question presents itself – is the District Attorney’s (and Judge’s) right to impose “pretrial” conditions on an individual’s release, a direct violation of the Constitution? Here’s where the Grand Jury indictments come in – for no person shall be deprived of life OR liberty, without the due process of law. But, in a grand jury indictment, for the few states that still choose to against the WORLD WIDE accepted standard and use this unconstitutional and outdated method, that IS due process. Yes – you are guilty. I define that by: the imposing of legal restrictions, as would be imposed on an individual found guilty of a crime in a court of law. You are guilty, because they impose limitations on you: curfews; use of the internet; the ability to drive; to go to a public bar; to go into certain locations; to possess legal and lawful items; and so on. You are guilty, and these impositions will continue to be placed upon you until such time as you can be proven innocent. Otherwise, if you are found guilty, then these impositions are increased and you are PUNISHED TWICE.

That’s…. real…. Constitutional.. isn’t it?

Finally comes the matter of personal property being taken for public use. Let me put this to you in the most clear and simple matter possible: search and seizure. The taking of your belongings, for examination by law enforcement, use as evidence in grand jury indictments (and court hearings), is a direct counterpart to the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy. Perhaps some of you might be thinking: “Well, this means they can’t take your T.V. to watch it for themselves.” Why? That would deprive you of the item’s: 1) ownership, 2) use, 3) freedom of liberty and 4) your Constitutional rights as they apply here.

But, what’s the difference? Whether the State’s taking your belongings to “build a case,” in which they are committing all four infringements listed in the previous paragraph, or to “use it for their own, personal reasons,” – it’s the same thing! Your items are in their possession for their use. Your items will now “profit” them. Not only will YOUR possessions be used against you – but they will be used for THEIR profit. If we were talking something as simple as unlawfully downloaded music, which you cannot legally possess, then, that would be something that could possibly be debated. But, if that music was on your computer, where you also kept your personal files, your letters, your email, your taxes and whatnot – then they are DIRECTLY violating the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution by keeping those items – WITHOUT just compensation.

Let me give you an example: Your computer’s taken under the false pretense of an accusation. But, in Oregon, false pretenses count as probable cause in the eyes of the law (somehow – that too – is believed to be “Constitutional??”). Your tax records are on there and you have them nowhere else. The IRS or Dept. of Revenue come knocking at your door, claiming you made a mistake in your tax filings seven years ago and owe them $50,000.00. The only proof you have is on your computer – but the State, without just compensation (which would mean equal and fair – not of value – of content – clearly stating that ALL of your information could be duplicated and returned to you immediately so you were NOT deprived of your belongings without said compensation), is preventing you from presenting your case. Now, the IRS/DOR, garnish your wages. You lose your home, your vehicle, can’t afford your meds and lose your health.

THIS IS EXACTLY why the Fifth Amendment exists. To overcome such dangerous situations that not only infringe upon your liberty – but YOUR LIFE!! However, the Oregon District Attorney’s Office, even in light of precedence set by the State Courts and multiple other States, will hold onto your valuables and abuse their power and privileges over you. Why? If you simply plead guilty or no contest -  your items are returned. You take the penalty, pay the fines (probably only around $3,000 or so – just losing your car, not your home or health), they get PAID for doing this to you, and the Constitution – well – it means NOTHING.

Does the Oregon D.A.’s office uphold the Constitution, as per their mission statement, the first Doctrine, as it pertains to the Fifth Amendment?

No. They argue and fight and spend OUR taxpayer dollars, to circumvent the Fifth Amendment. Once again – we have DIRECT EVIDENCE, that their office is lying, violating our Constitutional rights, and doing so without any manner of checks or balances. Of course, Oregon believes in Grand Juries – the “once upon a time” check and balance to prosecutions, and, in that corruption, has more prosecutions, per capita, than almost EVERY other State in the Union, justifying the taking of children and offering them up to rape, death and abuse; the imprisoning of innocent people, even before trial; and the continued abuse of power that remains unchecked.

State of Oregon
District Attorneys Mission Statement
The mission of the Oregon District Attorney is to uphold the United States Constitution and the Constitution and laws of the State of Oregon, to preserve the safety of the public, to protect the rights of crime victims and to pursue justice for all citizens with skill, honor and integrity.
(excerpt from http://www.odaa.state.or.us/mission.htm)

Excerpts from The Constitution of The United States of America, as quoted by the District Attorney's office, to be the FIRST doctrine that they exist to uphold:

(note - thanks to Steve Mount at http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html for the Constitutional references):

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. (Ratified 12/15/1791.)

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

First, let me point out the emphasis I maid above on: accused. That means: not guilty of, not yet determined to be guilty of, and only by mere “accusation,” has been brought forth for trial (refer to 5^th Amendment post on pretrial punishments). But, Congress HAS instituted laws that directly and blatantly violate the premises upon which the Sixth Amendment rests:

On January 28, 2008, in U.S. v. Winslow, Judge Smith, D. Alaska, found that the government's conditions for the defense's review of the computer hard-drive seized in the case violated the defendant's due process, fair trial and Sixth Amendment rights. As a result, the court ordered the government to provide the defense attorney with a copy of the hard drive, under specified conditions. Is this isolated? No. And, I’ve been trying to avoid ‘specifics,’ to avoid the unnecessary argument as to whether these violations are limited. The fact is, that Oregon has been putting more people in prison, for a violation of the Adam Walsh Act and associated laws, without a trial or hearing, because the Defense Attorneys, even those who are paid, are recommending that their clients automatically say “no contest,” because the Attorneys KNOW, they cannot adequately provide for their client’s defense. You can go to the State of Oregon’s, Public Defender website and read the numerous articles on this FACT, for yourself.

What’s really at the heart of the matter here though, is the violation of the Constitutional Right to confront the witnesses and the evidence. The Oregon D.A.’s office PREVENTS any “accused” individual from confronting their offender, in a court room, for many types of crimes, including sex offense. You cannot force the Courts to have to listen to the possibility that someone is lying, or that the ACCUSORS DON’T EVEN EXIST!! Yes – you cannot even prove that they are NOT REAL!! This has given way to the Oregon D.A.’s office blatantly abusing their power by trying cases solely upon “Circumstantial Evidence.”

In such cases where ONLY circumstantial evidence exists, the idea is to convince the trier of fact (a Judge or Jury), that you are probably MORE guilty, than not. And, in cases of internet pornography, murder, theft, and other such cases, the D.A. will present the so-called “evidence” to the trier of fact to help establish their disgust or anger against you. Do you need to see a picture of a nude child to determine that they are a nude child? Do you need to see the picture of a dead body to determine the individual is actually dead? Isn’t that what evidentiary hearings are for? To prove whether or not the evidence is real?

Here’s the catch. The Sixth Amendment does NOT say you are entitled to ‘competent’ or ‘effective’ counsel. It does not guarantee you protection against attorney’s who just want to take the money and run. Individual States are supposed to do that. And, where the D.A.’s office claims that part of its “mission,” is to preserve the safety of the public, to protect the rights of crime victims and to pursue justice for all citizens with skill, honor and integrity, the question is whether or not, their trying a case against you where you are not provided with effective or adequate counsel, is within the boundaries of “skill, honor and integrity?” I would argue that clearly, it’s not.

But, how do you even get a “fair” trial in front of a so-called, “jury of your peers?” The mere definition is an oxymoron. A Jury of my peers, that represents the peoples’ choice in this matter, is not 13 people sitting on a witness stand. It’s half a million people, it’s the entire nation. In fact, it goes so far as to be: NONE of the above. The truth is, that Jury, without any factual evidence such as “Witnesses to the crime,” are only being presented with evidence. And, in many cases, it is NOT EVEN evidence that a crime occurred! Ah, there lies the rub that makes calamity of so long life….

In Internet crimes, where the content of an individual’s computer contains contraband, the State and Federal laws BOTH, clearly state, that the crime is not in the mere possession of the evidence, in a digital format (as such would violate an individual’s free right to legally copy music they own and would most CERTAINLY violate the 4^th Amendment right to be secure in your personal and private belongings), but in the knowing downloading, accessing, storing and use (and distribution in certain instances) of that material. If I show you a hard disk with music on it that I believe the defendant had accessed off the Internet, I did not show you their ‘knowing’ download, just my opinion that it “more likely than not, beyond a ‘reasonable,’ doubt, occurred.” But, what is the reasonable doubt? Who determines what’s reasonable? A Jury of 13 people that don’t know me, anything about my values and morals, anything about my history or life or even what actually happened at the time this supposed ‘download’ occurred? Maybe a jury of technically incompetent individuals who don’t know enough to understand the whole entire “hacking/identity theft” industry? And, that’s where the D.A. comes in…

You see, the D.A. is permitted to be involved in the jury selection process. Why? Is that to ensure fairness to you? Of course not, they want to ensure there’s no bias against them, right? What bias is there – when YOU are the accused, YOU are the one being falsely accused of committing terrible and horrific acts against the welfare of those 13 people judging you. The only purpose the D.A. has, and you can read this on the NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S WEBSITE, under the area of articles, where they list a specific article pertaining to the Jury Selection Process in digital crimes. It specifically states that: “Most jurors have an 8^th grade intellect…” it goes on to say that it is imperative that the D.A. see to it that technically savvy individuals NOT be chosen for the jury, because they could identify the holes in the D.A.’s case, where it’s actually impossible to prove an individual was in front of their computer. It also states that: Completely unsavvy people should not be selected either, because their lack of computer knowledge will make it too difficult for you to explain to them that someone is guilty when you can’t actually prove that guilt. Instead, an individual of bare-minimum computer skills must be chosen, as they will be able to only understand that computers contain data, good or bad, but not understand the principals of how you actually “identify WHO” was on the computer and “who” committed the crime.

Okay – unconstitutional?

"....by an impartial jury...."

How much MORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL would you like to make this? What about the TV and media CONSTANTLY blasting horror stories about these types of crimes, creating an ENTIRE SOCIETY that is driven to be pre-determinately against the Defendant? If this is not an absolute violation by the D.A.’s office, ESPECIALLY in Oregon, I don’t know what is:

"….Pursue justice for all citizens with skill, honor and integrity,"

How much MORE against the D.A.’s so-called, “mission,” could this be? In fact – it gets worse. The State of Oregon has had it argued, with the help of the D.A.’s office, to reduce payment for Defense counsel and reduce the amount of financial aid provided by the Oregon Public Defender’s Financial Assistance office, making it virtually impossible for the Defense to adequately mount a case!! Folks – you can go online and read all this for yourself. I, sadly, cannot. As I write this, I do so with a pen and paper, using notes provided for me by my brother, because of some of the very issues that exist in this one, exact violation of the Constitution, and amongst others.

How many more INNOCENT people will have to be released from prison before someone realizes, that the inability to hold the D.A.’s office accountable to their “mission” statement, is perpetuating the violation of our rights?

Has the D.A. upheld the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution?

No, they haven’t. They have abused their authority to help select bias juries, to falsely and wrongly influence them, in the MIDDLE OF A TRIAL, without punishment for doing so, to prevent the Defense from proving his innocence – and for what? The “pursuit of justice?” When is it a pursuit of “justice,” when you blockade the “accused,” from proving their innocence? When is it a “pursuit of justice,” when you present so-called ‘evidence,’ to a legally unknowledgeable jury, falsely making them ‘believe,’ it’s evidence of a crime? When is it justice when you work to make the jury ‘hate’ the defendant, rather than rely upon facts?

When is it the pursuit of justice with SKILL, HONOR and INTEGRITY, when you try people based on the possibility they committed the crime, not the facts? Is this protecting us? Did this actually protect the crime victims’ rights (that is – going after the wrong person and possibly letting the guilty one free to do it again)? Is this supporting the Constitution of the United States, as claimed by the Oregon’s D.A. office?

No - not the movie. If you came for that - go home. I'm talking about one of the government's REAL watchmen... one of their most dangerous watchment.... The department of human services - child protective services.

Oh.. but they save us... they help all the poor, abused children.

Sure they do. Kind of like bleach will clean your intenstinal track of any impurities (NOTE - DISCLAIMER - DON'T DRINK BLEACH OR YOU'RE A FRAKING IDIOT WHO NEEDED TO BE WORKED OUT OF THE BREEDING CHAIN ANYWAY BECAUSE IT WILL KILL YOU - This is a METAPHOR - for those of you too STUPID - to know the difference). Sure... bleach cleans out every last poison, toxin and impurity your body has. This includes most of your intestines, your stomach and heck, it will even get rid of YOU! Why? Because it WILL kill you. Not "May" or "Could" - it "Will."

 The State of Oregon has been finding ways to force additional Federal Funds than just a recent threat of a Filibuster – Child Laundering

In a recent case with the Department of Human Services involving a child named, "S", a father’s struggle to have his child returned home has turned into a nightmare; but it has also provided him insight to disclose one of Oregon State’s dirty, little secrets. Due to a false allegation made by the State of Oregon and local Law Enforcement in an unrelated matter, DHS took his son and placed him into protective care. There have been no allegations that the father ever hurt or abused his child; nor any evidence presented that he was actually guilty of the crimes alleged by law enforcement, but DHS acted quickly, to ensure that his son, "S" would be, “safe.” That is, they improperly acted months after they began their investigation, leaving "S" with the allegedly, ‘dangerous,’ father, and then in a profit-making scam, abused the ‘Threat of Harm’ clause present in the Oregon laws to legally kidnap his child and give him away, in what is considered a non-abuse-based intervention. They removed a child from his home with the intention of permanently giving him away for profit and didn’t require any evidence of abuse to do so.

413-010-0180 Basic Rights of Children in SOSCF's Custody. Each child placed in the legal custody of SOSCF has the following rights:

(7) To be provided services which will reunite the child with his or her own family except when there is clear evidence that the family will not protect the child's welfare;

Now, one might believe that the family in question here is the one in which DHS has removed the child from (as per the line regarding a family not being willing to protect the child’s welfare) the only family they have known. Consider the following:

413-040-0005

(5) "Conditions for return" mean a written statement of the specific behaviors, conditions, or circumstances that must exist within a child's home before a child can safely return and remain in the home with an in-home ongoing safety plan.

Would you believe that the only ‘returning,’ that a child who has been kidnapped from their home that can happen is to return them back to the family from which they were taken? Would you believe that the references to changes in that home would refer to the home from which the child had been harmed in which change would need to occur? You would be wrong if you inferred that from this clause; although it appears as if the Oregon Legislature had that intention when they first wrote the law. Here’s the catch:

413-040-0009

Requirements for Conditions for Return

(2) The conditions for return are documented in the case plan and must describe:

(a) The specific behaviors, conditions, or circumstances that must exist to develop an ongoing safety plan that assures a child's safety, as described in OAR 413-015-0450(2)(b)(A)(i) – (iii), in the home of a parent or legal guardian; and

(b) The actions, services, and time requirements of all participants in the ongoing safety plan in the home of a parent or legal guardian

Are these two sections (413-040- 0005/0009) different or do they pertain to any different situation? Sadly, the answer is no. If you look at the above OAR law, you’ll notice the phrase, “a parent.” This means, that an ‘ongoing,’ safety plan for ensuring a child’s safety to be returned to their home – does NOT mean that a child will be returned to their original home. The ongoing safety plan can be for the absent parent to do nothing more than attend classes that teach them how to keep the child safe from the supposedly, dangerous, other parent. And, DHS’ need to be involved to the point it costs them time and labor, ends with the awarding of custody of the child to the absent parent; and, no consideration at all is given for returning the child to the parent from which they had been kidnapped. (And I will digress on the PAS - parental alienation syndrome - issues which have begun to be more recognized in the last 5 years, that the child is being horrifically subjected to...)

What’s especially frightening about this, is that the laws also state that a child’s best interests are to be considered first, and the least amount of intrusiveness is top priority. The laws recognize that there must be some consistency. Unfortunately, the mechanism by which that consistency exists, doesn’t financially support the government, and will therefore, never happen. DHS does not receive federal dollars, nor any incentive for making any effort to reunite a child with the parent(s) from which they had been taken. You can refer to the report by Senator Nancy Schaefer on the findings from her office into the investigations into DHS operating in Georgia, and the Nation as a whole.

No courtroom hearing that allowed for evidence to be presented by both parties, took place. There was no need for the Constitution of the United States of America, in regards to due process and fair representation, to be upheld in a court of law. In the case of "S", the Judge questioned whether or not DHS had met its obligation to attempt to return the child home, and they "said" they did; but no evidence had to be presented in this matter, only their bogus statement that they felt the falsely, accused parent was just unwilling to try. The OAR laws specifically outline rules to the contrary, but without the parent being allowed fair representation or due process, the Judge made a one-sided ruling; going against every last principal of jurisprudence ever established, regarding the right of both parties to present evidence in full for the Judge to make a fair and impartial decision. In the recent Oregon Child Advocacy Project, in an Amicus Curiae Brief, Professor Leslie Harris shows that there is evidence that courtrooms who act presumptuously and do not consider all the evidence, sufficiency of counsel or the best interests of the children are bound to be more harmful to innocent children than good, and are evidence of failures in the legal system to abide by any of the existing laws of fairness and equality for the families.

In the case of "S", DHS circumvented the father’s rights to present evidence, awarding custody to mother from the custodianship they had lied to obtain. They presented mother with adoption paperwork the day the CPS Caseworker, not the permanency worker, gave her custody (which would go against all OAR and ORS standards for permanency plans, temporary shelter plans and other similar solutions in these types of situations). This allowed the mother to apply for full, legal custody within the Juvenile court system. The father will not have any rights in this matter – whether or not the charges against him in the unrelated matter are ever deemed true or not (and thus, whether or not DHS acted upon a false allegation and destroyed an innocent family because of a lie). Why? Because, "S's" new mom - the absend one who abandoned him, will continue to receive additional funds and monies from the federal government, and DHS will get a bonus for assisting. What DHS did, was to take the child away from his safe and healthy home because of a political structure that encourages law enforcement agents and District Attorney’s offices to help create false allegations against families that allow DHS to get involved. It is an intricately laid out scam that starts at the very top of a State’s, political infrastructure (and there is evidence to prove the Office of the Ombudsmen intentionally ignored this matter).

Because these allegations do not involve any forms of abuse, and cannot actually substantiate any threat of abuse other than to often times rely on inappropriate means such as having bogus psychological evaluations performed by low-end, so-called professionals, DHS has to make sure that a child is transferred from their custody as soon as possible. It is child laundering. Their temporary placement for safety pending the results of a criminal trial to determine the facts, are lost when DHS transfers the matter over to the Juvenile Courts, allowing the dependency case to ‘appear,’ to continue in light of any other pending cases while the custody case can go through without having to be set aside. In fact, in the case of "S’s" father, the Judge in the dependency matter asked the District Attorney why they would not wait until after the findings in the criminal case to make rash decisions. The D.A. claimed that they would, most likely continue forth with a civil hearing on the matter following the results of the criminal case; even if the father was proven, not guilty.

Ask yourself this – if the father can prove that the allegations against him are completely untrue, and DHS took his child based on those allegations, why would they bother with an additional trial, and for what? Then, ask yourself this – what purpose would a civil trial between DHS and the father have in the dependency matter if the parent’s rights had already been terminated and the State had given him away to his mother? It helps to know that the D.A. told the Judge, that they would go forth with a civil trial, even if the father was found innocent, after they had begun to work on the Juvenile case to ensure that the mother would have custody. What appears to be taking place in courtrooms across the country, is that the children are getting pushed through the cracks and the cases washed under the carpets, because the D.A. plans to pursue a criminal case that they have concocted and have therefore become quite proficient at doing so, knowing that they can obscure this child-selling, money-making scheme in the background, behind their money-making scheme to imprison innocent people. One system supports another, and it appears to be a well-oiled, giant machine designed around corrupt politics.

This same type of laundering takes place with money. But, children are not objects. They are not money, and this is America – the idea of laundering a child within the legal system for monetary gain is equivalent to a terrorist act, punishable by life imprisonment, or death. That is, unless you’re DHS or the District Attorney. As Rep. Gordon Smith, along with every other member of the Oregon Legislature were notified of this situation, they had an opportunity to respond. However, as the Representatives in Oregon all rallied behind Rep. Smith’s, filibuster threat, they have proven that they will allow any tragedy to occur in order to increase their profit margin. DHS has been exempt from lying in a court and disobeying a Judge’s, direct orders, while in a different court room, a young lady was berated and threatened for not informing the courts, one time, when she moved residences from a temporary shelter into her mother’s home, for charges that are also bogus.

How much do each of these non-abuse cases yield for the State of Oregon? Last year alone, the 5000 – 6000 children taken in a non-abuse situation, turned over about $12 million dollars …. per month. That number is only reflecting the amount made by the absentee parents and foster families and doesn’t even count the amount given to DHS itself. Now we understand how Representatives such as Gordon Smith, are going to guarantee their money; through abusive, criminal and terrorist actions. The State will continue to support trying criminal cases based on entirely circumstantial evidence, knowing that this means that people can lie and there’s a high probability of the innocent sitting in prison, making Oregon ever wealthier for the rich, while crushing the lives of innocent children to help continue to build their money-making empire well into the future.

What man or woman, can cast their vote, knowing that keeping any of the currently elected officials, means that more innocent children, will die suffer? Oregon’s welfare system received an overall grade in 2007 of “D”. This includes internal departments such as the Child Welfare system receiving an overall “D” grade.  Of the 12,000 children that DHS takes, half of them are based, continuously, year after year, upon the Threat of Harm, without any finding of fact. Psychsexual evaluations that do not meet the industry’s standards are abused by clinicians who may hold a Master’s Degree, but not the clinical, psychologists or psychiatric degree required to actually perform a legitimate test, and the courts allow this.

Of course, to some extent, there must be an excuse for the courts. They are overwhelmed, and when a Judge receives only one side of the evidence, and is instructed by the State that they WILL accept this, then they must act accordingly. The Judges rely on the reports they receive from agencies such as DHS and CASA, to the extent that they know these agencies were designed to protect children. And, when half of the cases coming through their courtrooms involve abused children that are battered or raped, the Judges will get to see that some good does exist within DHS. For this reason, they are shielded from getting to know that more than 20% of those battered, raped and murdered children, are also the victims of foster care that resulted from DHS taking a child from a home where they had never been abused and placing them into a dangerous situation. So, in some situations, the Judges must maintain the right to be exempt from the accusations of corrupt, profiteering off of the innocent.

However, the politicians must not be permitted to be exempt. They choose to represent the people, but their representation includes the blatant abuse of approximately 6000 children every year, and has not improved in over ten years’ time. DHS takes approximately 1.5% of Oregon’s children every year (in a state whose population is slightly less than 4 million people total; and only about 20% of those are children under the age of 14!). DHS claims that they are understaffed and underfunded. Rep. Gordon Smith claims that the Federal Government must begin to contribute more to the State of Oregon. The Oregon welfare system, the education system and other programs that involve children look to be cut once again this year because of underfunding. However, when the yearly, federal dollars given for children that are taken for reasons that do NOT include any form of abuse are around $200 million dollars per year, it raises the question over the potential abuse of Federal dollars.

The issue of protecting children from abuse is a very serious one and should not be taken lightly. There should never be any reason to not use tax dollars on both the State and Federal levels to ensure that children who have been subjected to abuse, are given the right to be protected. What we should be concerned with, is an industry such as DHS, whose entire success and future depends on removing children from what they label as ‘dangerous homes.’ If the Oregon, Department of Human Services were to stop taking children that they only ‘believed,’ to be harmed, than they would have their caseloads reduced to only slightly more than half of what they currently handle. This means that their supposedly strapped budget would also be significantly cut. Permanency workers, such as the one on "S’s" case, handle near 30 children at any given time, and must contribute a significant portion of time to each case. It has already been argued that a teacher in a classroom, whose responsibility starts and stops within the hours of school operation, cannot properly handle that many children; how can we expect a caseworker who’s responsible 24/7 to do the same?

The answer is simple: cut the caseload, by changing the priority status of DHS to managing cases of child abuse. Assessments can be done all day long for alleged child abuse, but cases that do not involve child abuse should never be a part of any case management. That would exceed the scope, reasoning and logic for child welfare. It should further be added, that in cases where evidence has not been established as per the law, that not only should DHS not be permitted to intervene, but that temporary shelter assistance, should remain in effect until such time as a child can be returned to their parent either following the establishments of the facts as untrue, or until such time as the parent can be retrained to get their kids back. Giving a child away, whether it’s to a foster family or an absentee parent, violates the principals of custody cases and individual rights. Doing so without any proof of abuse or legally established facts, violates the entire foundation of due process as included within the Constitution. To do so otherwise, would appear as a malicious, egregious attack on the innocent; especially the children. I wouldn’t suppose that our officials in Congress would do such a thing; so then comes the other fear – money. Let us stop selling our children and start protecting our families, shall we? This is, after all – America.

SOURCES:

http://www.law.uoregon.edu/org/child/docs/dhs.pdf

http://www.law.uoregon.edu/org/child/docs/jenkinsbriefexcerpt.pdf

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A128226.htm

http://www.knightsindirtyarmour.com/ArrestWarrant.html

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341216.shtml

http://www.nkmr.org/english/the_state_is_the_child_abuser.htm

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/319814.shtml

http://suncanaa.com/2008

http://www.kids-right.org/shame11.htm

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf