Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Declaration May 8, 2009

Declaration May 8, 2009 - filed in court

May 19, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

If Congress cannot make a law, then certainly no lower level of government, much less an agency can make a law or a rule to do so. It is clear that DCFS is making a special rule to apply to me which prohibits the free exercise of my religion, and abridges my freedom of speech. 

Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. Study to show thyself approved until God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. ~2 Timothy 2:12-15

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. ~2 Timothy 3:16

But I would have you know, that the head of every man in Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. ~1 Corinthians 11:3

Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: bur bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. ~Ephesians 6: 1-4

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them. Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well-pleasing unto the Lord. Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.~Colossians 3:18-21

My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother: for they shall be an ornament of grace unto they head, and chains about thy neck. ~Proverbs 1:8-9

My son, keep thy father’s commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother: Bind them continually upon thine heart, and tie them about thy neck. ~Proverbs 6: 20-21

A wise son maketh a glad father: but a foolish man despiseth his mother. ~Proverbs 15:20

And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. ~Acts 5: 27-29 

Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth; and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD. And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. ~Joshua 24:14-15

My children are gifts to me from God, the Creator and Ruler of the Universe. He has given me and their fathers the responsibility for the care, nurture, and training of these children. He has commanded my children to obey me and to listen to my instructions. My immediate authority is my husband, and that authority comes from this same God, spelled out in the Holy Scriptures. It is my strongly held religious belief and conviction that my children are mine by right of divine providence, and that no man, neither state nor agency, has a right or higher authority to interfere with the sacred institution of the Family. It matters not whether this alleged court or the administrative agency known as DCFS and DSHS believes that I have this right. It is my religious belief and I have a constitutionally protected right to the free exercise thereof.

Included in that is my responsibility to educate and train my children. To do so, I must speak to them. I also have the constitutionally protected right to the freedom of speech. This alleged court and DCFS do not have the authority to infringe upon my right to continued and free association and communication with my children.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

I am one of the People, and the security of my person, house, papers, and effects was violated by armed men who invaded my house without a warrant. My entire family was seized, despite the fact there was no warrant for the seizure of myself, my husband, or our children. DCFS has also invaded and seized my family without a warrant. Their agency is to provide services requested. To forcefully seize my children and then demand that I comply with their wishes for me to participate in their services is nothing less than kidnapping, hostage taking, and extortion. They are essentially “offering” their “services” at the point of a gun. This does not make me a client.

No person shall be held to answer for any 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 offence 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. Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

I am one of the People, I am not a person. Nevertheless, I was already imprisoned for 218 days for an alleged crime, and then was released. That court, in rendering a judgment over an issue which it believed it held jurisdiction, did not determine that I had lost any of my natural, God-given, constitutionally guaranteed rights, most importantly, the right to raise my children without interference. DCFS has determined, under the guise of Kitsap Superior Court, that I should not have my children because of this alleged crime. This is being subject to the same offence and twice being put in jeopardy. I have been deprived of over two years of my life and liberty and property without due process of law. My children have been taken from me for public use, without just compensation. DCFS profits by having control of my children, and I have never been compensated for this; yet DCFS wants to extort money from me, under the guise of Child Support, which is in essence and in fact requiring me to compensate them for their crimes.

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 where in 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. Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

This proceeding is pretending to be a civil matter, yet it carries a harsher penalty than most criminal cases. Depriving parents and children of their family is the equivalent of the death penalty, a punishment for only the most heinous of crimes. I have not been provided with an impartial jury of my peers. I have not been informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. I’m not even sure what the specific accusation is. I have never had the Assistance of Counsel for my defense. Appointment of attorneys who are on the payroll of the state, who fail to defend my rights, who pretend to “represent” me, is not Assistance of Counsel. I have been bullied, threatened, coerced, and put under great duress, not only by DCFS, but by the attorneys who have done nothing to assist me, but have only hindered me, namely Cherry Davis, Anne Montgomery, and Nancy Tarbell.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Seventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

The value in controversy is most certainly in excess of twenty dollars, as the value of each of my children and our right to an unhindered family relationship is beyond any value that man can place upon it. I have been denied my constitutionally guaranteed right of trial by jury.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

The tearing apart of a happy, loving, secure family is cruel and unusual punishment, and there are no criminal charges against me which would have as a punishment the loss of parental rights.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Ninth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

Ms. Kerry Stevens has made a sorry attempt to say that since the Constitution did not specifically say that parents retained their rights over their children, then that must mean that the state can therefore have authority over families. This is very poor logic. Government was granted very specific and limited powers, and anything not specifically named was retained by the People or to their state governments. The state constitutions used the same wording, and the powers granted to government by the People are spelled out in detail. Nowhere was authority over the family granted to government. Fear of this very act of usurping authority was what brought on great controversy in the writing of the Constitution and subsequent Bill of Rights:

The idea of adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was originally controversial. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 84, argued against a "Bill of Rights," asserting that ratification of the Constitution did not mean the American people were surrendering their rights, and therefore that protections were unnecessary: "Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations." Critics pointed out that earlier political documents had protected specific rights, but Hamilton argued that the Constitution was inherently different:
Bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was "Magna Charta", obtained by the Barons, swords in hand, from King John.

Finally, Hamilton expressed the fear that protecting specific rights might imply that any unmentioned rights would not be protected:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

Essentially, Hamilton and other Federalists believed in the British system of common law which did not define or quantify natural rights. They believed that adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution would limit their rights to those listed in the Constitution. This is the primary reason the Ninth Amendment was included.

This is also expressed in the statutes, which are code and not law:

The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created. RCW 42.56.030

DSHS and its sub-agencies are agencies which are designed to serve the people. I maintain that I am one of the People and that I have never yielded my sovereignty to anyone, and especially not to DCFS. If DCFS were truly serving me, then it would do as I instruct it; it could never make demands upon me. I have never entered into a contract with DCFS, and have never agreed to be bound by their rules and policies. I am not a client of DCFS because I have neither engaged their “services” nor am I served by them. DCFS acts only to the great detriment of the families and People upon whom they have thrust themselves.

September 10, 2005
A happy day, being a family.

This photograph shows 10 of the 14 POWs in this government's War on the Family.

No comments: