U.S. Atty. Loretta Lynch should say to U.S. Dist. Atty. David Capp: INDIANA HERE I COME!
- On February 16, 2016, the first annual report was released on Opt IN USA, a grassroots U.S. foreign policy reform, judicial accountability, and international human rights campaign. The report title is “AMERICANS IN JEOPARDY: When Human Rights Protection Becomes America’s Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branch Shell Game”.
- Corporate sponsor of the report is National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Inc. (NJCDLP), a nonprofit U.S. public policy think tank and legal reform advocate headquartered just outside Chicago in Crown Point, Indiana.
- While all NJCDLP board members are cutting-edge pioneers in detecting and addressing patterns of U.S. legal system abuse, the organization's Executive Board member Mr. Rodney A. Logal, his wife, attorney Zena Crenshaw-Logal*, and their fellow NJCDLP co-founder, Dr. Andrew D. Jackson, are the organization's driving force. They are NJCDLP’s full-time volunteers as well as the non-profit’s primary financial benefactors.
- In that context it is particularly significant that two Indiana judges have taken to repeatedly placing the Logals and Dr. Jackson at respective risk of arrest: a death threat for Mr. Logal given how jail would affect his medical care and health. Moreover, substantial debt has been imposed by default upon the Logals and Dr. Jackson, and is in the process of being collected although the underlying judgments are void as a matter of law!
- In late September 2015, the Logals and Dr. Jackson asked the Indiana House Judiciary Committee and the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana to investigate several area judges whose activities may be part of what has been dubbed “The Third Degree” (TTD).
- As the 2016 Opt IN USA report makes clear, TTD is a persistent pattern of persecution and psychological torture imposed through U.S. legal system abuse.
- U.S. District Attorney Capp has shown no interest in the phenomenon despite its obvious peril for Mr. and Mrs. Logal as well as Dr. Jackson, not to mention the prospect of multiple related murders, including the suspicious death of a lawyer who attested to the bribery of a now retired Indiana state court judge.
- Uncanny it is that little to no oversight is brought to bear for Americans claiming to endure TTD.
- Ironically their allegations -- specifically the notion that they are targets of TTD -- rarely if ever garner more than cursory major media and U.S. government attention. Yet for each of them, powerful private sector and/or U.S. public sector actors expend tremendous time, effort, and resources muting their government critiques through quasi-judicial and/or judicial processes.
- Whether as a result they opt to suffer in silence, become widely ignored or disregarded, cease communicating while incarcerated, and/or die . . . these supposedly too-insignificant-to-take-seriously people get silenced.
- Please do not allow the Logals and Dr. Jackson to "get silenced". Your representatives in Northwest Indiana are in the process of letting that happen.
- The time has come for protection of the Logals and Dr. Jackson to come out of Washington, D.C. And time is of essence as the Opt IN USA debut report makes clear, particularly its section on "Ground Zero: INDIANA, the Hoosier State" and Appendix.
- Learn more @ www.thethirddegree.net
Family Reunification Act could restore parental rights in some lost custody cases | Minnesota Public Radio News
Lawmakers are considering a bill that would give some parents who lost custody of their children years ago a chance to reunify with them.
Advocates say only a small number of teens living in foster care could be affected by the Family Reunification Act, but that it could make a great difference for those motivated parents who have dealt with their problems and whose children want to go home again.
Eleven states currently have a process for parents to regain their parental rights if they meet certain criteria, said Ramsey County Attorney John Choi. In Minnesota, it is impossible.
Every year in Minnesota, approximately 400 abused or neglected children wind up in foster care after their parents lose the right to care for them. The state tries to find adoptive families for the displaced children but sometimes fails to place them, Choi said. The best choice for some of these teenagers might be to reunify with a birth parent.
“I'm supporting this bill on behalf of those children who we have not taken care of, who we have not found homes for.”Ret. Justice Helen Meyer, Minnesota Supreme Court
"For those kids who are 15 years or older, who have never been adopted, and who have at least spent 36 months since the time the parental rights were terminated, that if the parent is able to take care of their child and has the financial wherewithal, government shouldn't stand in that way."
Choi and other supporters of the Family Reunification Act held a news conference at the Minnesota Adult and Teen Challenge, an addiction recovery center in south Minneapolis.
Retired Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Helen Meyer, who helped establish the Child Protection Clinic at William Mitchell College of Law, said her background as a social worker taught her how much children -- even those who have been through terrible things -- want to return home.
"There are some children who are never adopted, and there are some children whose parents come forward years later... with some ability to parent and some ability to provide a safe, permanent home for their children," Meyer said. "I'm supporting this bill on behalf of those children who we have not taken care of, who we have not found homes for."
The speakers pointed to the extremely low rates of adoption for older African American and American Indian children. Children who "age out" of foster care without permanent families to fall back on are at greater risk of homelessness, addiction and other problems in adulthood.
Gina Evans of Forest Lake is one mother who for six years has pushed for a chance at redemption. Evans, now 39, lost custody of her son and daughter in 2001 due to neglect. She left her children in the care of her parents, sometimes for long periods of time, when she was using drugs. Evans said the state had every right to terminate her parental rights. She went through treatment and has been clean for nine years. She was able to overcome her felonies to find work again, but when she talked to child protection workers, her county attorney and state lawmakers, she learned there was no second chance at parenthood.
"They weren't opposed to me getting my parental rights back. They just had never heard of it before," Evans said. "It's unchartered territory."
The bill Evans is advocating would not help her family. Her son, Chris, 12, is too young, and lives with Evans' parents, not in foster care. Her daughter, Danielle Conley, is already an adult. But Conley said she wishes that when she was an 11-year-old girl and her mother stopped doing drugs, there could have been a way for them to be a family again.
"Everybody deserves a second chance," Conley said. "As a child of somebody who is a felon and did get their parental rights terminated: when I found out she was getting help; when I found out she was going to Teen Challenge to turn her life around, I was so excited that she could change and it didn't matter what had happened or that she had been gone. I was just so excited to have my mom back."
The Family Reunification Act has bipartisan support at the Capitol. Choi said only about 35 children in Minnesota's child protection system would fit the criteria to rejoin their parents, but for those families, a second chance should be possible
He is doing what he can. What I'm finding we need more of are advocates (rights educated people with advocacy training and time, to spend with families trapped in the system, who can bear ACTUAL witness directly to the judge in court) so many parents have lost all rights with NO actual evidence against or for them.
ReplyDeleteIt's human nature to seek out a partner in life, and to possibly marry and have children. Unfortunately the matrimonial establishment, as we are all aware, is being methodically torn down by a demoralized society. Sadly the divorce rate is still on the rise and the foundation of marriage is being devalued and is crumbling. As adults we learn to adapt and move on when divorce attacks our lives but for children this is another story. They are the real victims of divorce and unfortunately they will suffer dearly from our selfishness and in most cases follow the same path of destruction if not worse.
ReplyDeleteAs a nation we have been granted certain civil rights by our constitution. Through the years it has been amended to better the lives of many Americans. The two most notable changes have come to Women in the 1920s and with African Americans in the 1960s. These rights were long overdue for both segments of our nation but thankfully we realized our mistakes and corrected them. This was not an easy journey for either of these crusades but through dedication and perseverance the bells of liberty rang loudly and victory was achieved.
Unfortunately we have reached yet another fork in the road and with that comes another challenge to the American people. "We've worked hard for women's rights, but we have to watch out that the pendulum doesn't swing the other way" says Ruthie J. of the Reach FM. Ironically the pendulum has already swung far to one side and this time the male gender is being demonized by erroneous and fraudulent information. Males are being portrayed as callus, uncaring, and without emotion. We are being taught that men represent 95% of abuse in this nation against women. These and many other false statistics are being recklessly strewn throughout society and none of it is true. Yes, women are being abused by men that is a fact. striking a woman is abhorrent to the highest degree and should be dealt with appropriately but men are abused at an equal rate and they are being ignored. According to a study by the Center for Disease Control men represent 38% of domestic violence related injuries. Compound that with the fact that only 0.9% of men report abuse verses 8.5% of women and I think we have a pretty equal degree of violence between partners.
The cornerstone of this "abuse" is VAWA the Violence Against Women Act. It was passed into law by Bill Clinton in 1994 and has been extended by every subsequent President. This law funnels Billions of dollars into discriminatory education and propaganda that violates men's civil rights. Many times DVIs or Domestic Violence Injunctions are used as a tool in divorce, child custody or just vengeance against a partner, most often against males. This is because the system of acquiring a DVI is simple and requires no evidence, witnesses or prior police reports. Just the word of an alleged victim making a claim of abuse. The repercussions of these orders are devastating and many times result in a violation, arrest and complete destruction of one's life. Even in cases when they are dismissed, a serious blemish remains on the falsely accused forever; how does that look to potential employers who almost always perform background checks prior to employment? This must be stopped and a better system of protecting all victims of domestic violence should be put in place.
I hope to help bring awareness to gender discrimination and help provide support for men who are abused. There are programs to help women of abuse but nothing for men. My website will provide more information on the facts, my personal experiences and the stories of those who have been victims of this heinous tactic of relationship vengeance. Men and women should truly have equal rights and currently the scales are unjustly tilted. Let's work together to end domestic violence and not vilify one gender as inherently abusive. "United we stand, divided we fall" A powerful statement that we must never forget.
Thank you,
Tom Lemons
Founder, www.falsedvireports.com
"Normal parents can put the needs of their children first. They know that demeaning and demonizing their partner harms the children and however they may feel about their they do not want to harm their children. The problem of brainwashing children arises when one or other parent or both put their needs first and use the children as weapons against each other. These are the adults who have personality disorders that go unrecognized in court. There both parents are given an equal hearing the problem occurs when one parent lies and cheats under oath, manipulates the judiciary and everyone in the case while the normal parent looks on in horror. Women will always be given the benefit of the doubt over men especially by men which is why so many men loose their children. The training of so called experts in the universities and in workshops has been in the hands of radical feminists for the last forty years as a result there is no level playing field between parents any longer. All I can say that I have seen children deprived of a loving parent reconnect after years of demonizing that parent. For other parents they have to live with the injustice for the rest of their lives their child or children are to damaged to ever know the truth." ~ Erin Pizzey
ReplyDeletePRO SE RIGHTS:
ReplyDeleteSims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."
Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425 ~ Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) ~ "Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." The court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.
Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449 ~ "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905 ~ "... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA "Next Friend" ~ A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) ~ "Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 ~ Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) ~ "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."
NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery, 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969) ~ Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law."
Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals ~ The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."
Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) ~ It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).
Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982) ~ "Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law."
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) ~ "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights."
Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239. ~ "The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State."