Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

Legally Kidnapped

On CPS And Other Examples Of Totalitarian Government Monopoliescps kidnapping insane media

By Scott Lazarowitz

There is a reason for concern about the rise in totalitarianism in Amerika. The government-monopolized judicial system is a banana republic-like system.

The lawlessness and criminality within the system is rampant. Not just with the judicial system but now it seems that everything associated with government, from medical care to the local zoning board, operates as a racket, and many of those who are a part of the system seem to view the civilian population as the “enemy,” or as toys to play with, or as insects to step on.

This recent post by Martin Armstrong describes his own experiences with the judicial system and his time in jail. Armstrong links to this article on Zero Hedge regarding power-hungry judges who criminally overstep their authority. Armstrong concludes:

I have no compassion for anyone who works in the Justice Department and would never hire a lawyer who ever worked for the government. There is nothing these people will not do to win. You have zero rights and they will kill you and go celebrate at dinner afterwards. You cannot possibly image the type of people who gravitate to these positions. I believe they are the kids who tortures cats and dogs for fun.

And as I mentioned recently, there are the corrupt prosecutors with their prosecution quotas, and all the innocents whose lives have been ruined or ended by the vicious agents of the State.

So yes, there are many criminals and degenerates who are judges and lawyers or otherwise law bureaucrats who are power-hungry and would run over their own children to attain more power over others as well as enrich themselves with others’ fortunes.

And take “Child Protective Services.” (Please.) CPS bureaucrats are really part of the judicial system, as everything else seems to be. This article on Activist Post describes the ordeal that Jeffrey and Erica Henderson went through. The government police broke into their home without a warrant, beat up Jeffrey and charged him with “resisting.” Eventually their kids were taken from them, their possessions and finances stolen from them. All this based on an anonymous tip from a “neighbor” who wanted to accuse them of “endangerment.” In the article, a statement from Mrs. Henderson includes: “The officers searched our home, strip searched and interviewed our children and found no evidence of abuse. I was never arrested or ticketed.”

“Strip searched”? No evidence of abuse? Excuse me, just who here is endangering innocent children? The parents who happen to oppose vaccination and who homeschool their kids, or the government police who are strip searching innocent little children? (Incidentally, Bill Sardi has this article on the recent study on vaccinated kids vs. non-vaccinated kids. Very important information. But I digress.)

Mrs. Henderson also notes: “The prosecution alleged we were guilty of resisting an officer by not opening the door when the police said to, and child endangerment because of the psychological damage suffered by the children from watching the door being beat down.”

Of course, legally, if the government police don’t have a warrant (and to get a warrant there needs to be reasonable suspicion, probable cause), then they don’t enter the place without your consent, period. And the children’s “psychological damage” caused by watching marauding thugs break into their home? Well who the hell is responsible for THAT? Yes, the ones who criminally broke into innocent people’s home!

Now, I’ve been a law-abiding citizen my whole life. So, I expect our government police to obey the law, too, you know. There are rules they must follow. But really the one who should be arrested here is the damn neighbor for making an anonymous complaint. That neighbor should be charged with false accusation, harassment and endangerment. S/he started all this.

And then there was Tom Ball, who ended up self-immolating as a protest against the court system, CPS and the police, after a ten-year ordeal. In a nutshell, a mental health counselor told his wife that if the wife didn’t call the police on him, the counselor would have them both arrested. (That would mean more CPS child-kidnapping.) His conclusion later on was that the wife called the police on him to protect the kids not from him but from CPS.

That way of protecting the kids from CPS is substantiated by Mr. Henderson, mentioned above, who agreed to divorce Mrs. Henderson in order to save the kids from being taken away from them by CPS.

So the system here is really anti-father, anti-husband, anti-male. (My conclusion is that many who work for CPS are not married and don’t have children themselves. What do you think? Am I all wet on that?)

CPS also makes a lot of money every time its agents kidnap an innocent child.

And then there was the case of the late Georgia state Sen. Nancy Schaefer, who was investigating CPS kidnappings of innocent children and a possible linkage to child sex-trafficking. With government agencies, especially those dealing with the more vulnerable of society, for some reason such an institution seems to attract the sexual deviancy of degenerates. The State is a cult, in my view.

Sen. Schaefer ultimately was killed in an alleged “murder-suicide” along with her husband, killings that were very suspicious and could cause people to conclude that she was “suicided.”

But the corruption and abuse isn’t just with the judicial system, it is very much with government itself, and the cronies who associate with them.

For example, more recently, according to Erin Elizabeth, there have been several suspicious deaths/murders of doctors associated with holistic medicine/alternative treatments for disease and cancer (other than the Big Pharma poison that most people get). I am not accusing anyone involved with Big Pharma of actually killing innocent people in order to suppress information about nutritional alternatives for treating disease or cancer. But, given all the tax-funded handouts and the FDA-Big Pharma revolving door, it wouldn’t surprise me, that’s what I meant to say.

And I have frequently mentioned the plight of teenager Justina Pelletier. Now almost 19, while in her mid-teens she was being treated for mitochondrial disease, but when her regular doctor was away she was seen, or scheduled to be seen by a different doctor. But there she was seen by psychiatrists instead, who dismissed her treatment as being unnecessary and that her disease was really “somatoform disorder,” i.e. it was “all in her head.” From that point onward, the “doctors” i.e. quacks changed her medical treatment and attempted to force her into a program of “behavior modification,” while at the same time had DCF seize custody of Justina away from her parents, and had her placed in this prison-like facility. Besides criminally kidnapping Justina, the “doctors” and their aiders and abettors put her into worse health, she then had to use a wheelchair, and now the Pelletiers are suing the hospital and doctors for doing these things to her. And good for the Pelletiers. Actually, I believe the “doctors” should be charged criminally with kidnapping, endangerment, child abuse, assault and battery, and human enslavement, as well as sued financially.

Those “doctors” might have been using Justina as a guinea pig in their psychological studies as well as being part of getting government grants for research. So these dishonest practitioners, too, are inter-connected with the State. When the State gets involved with medical care, it turns the doctors into government doctors. Governments use and abuse people for the government agents’ own purposes, for political or social power, financial enrichment, and/or for the sake of furthering their brainwashed ideologies. In this case with the Pelletiers, the “doctors” brainwashed ideology is “behavior modification,” in which they attempt to fit the medical patient into such an ideology like forcing a square peg into a round hole.

For more information, Natural News lists some medical kidnapping cases, and there’s a website devoted to such criminality. In many cases, Establishment practitioners consider a parent’s disagreement with doctors’ diagnosis or course of treatment as “abuse” of the child. In some cases, doctors are just plain wrong in their course of treatment of patients, but such doctors are too ignorant to know that or too arrogant to acknowledge it.

Besides the aforementioned Tom Ball who self-immolated after a ten-year ordeal with CPS, one other victim of the bureaucratic gestapo was Andrew Wordes. This case didn’t involve children or CPS. Wordes was a resident of Roswell, Georgia who kept chickens on his back yard and gave away eggs, according to this article by Jeff Tucker. However, the local zoning fascist bureaucrats didn’t like the chickens so they tried to get Wordes to remove the chickens even though he was not violating any ordinance. He actually won in court, but later the fascists got the city council to rewrite the law for the purpose of further harassing Wordes. So the town’s bureaucrats went after this guy for no good reason, except to exert power and control over him. Eventually, after a long battle inflicted on him by hardcore Nazi-wannabes that he felt he could not win, he blew up his house and himself with it.

To conclude, government is different from other institutions. Government is a monopoly. It is a forced, compulsory monopoly over the people. Government therefore attracts the worst of the worst (with few exceptions) who become addicted to the power over others that governmental monopolistic authority gives those people, and that gives the people associated with it or who benefit from such power grabs.

Scott Lazarowitz is a libertarian writer and commentator. Please visit his blog.

Advertisements

Continued Review of Lawless MN Courts

Battered woman becomes American refugee in Amsterdam

itemprop
A wanted fugitive and kidnapper in the United States, Holly Collins was granted refugee status in the Netherlands in 1997

It was the first week of the New Year when Holly Collins showed her identification card to the clerk at City Hall in a small township in western Holland. “Asylum for an unlimited time,” it read on the front. On the back: “American Citizen.”

“Have you seen this? An American asylum seeker!” the shocked clerk yelled to a colleague across the lobby. Dozens of people milling about the building stopped to listen. The clerk shook her head, and held the card to the light. She couldn’t believe it: an American refugee.

“That’s how it all started,” Holly says over the phone as she sits in her home in a city she asked us not to name. It was 2006, and for the next five months, the mother and children dodged questions as rumors circulated the small village streets.

Then, on May 11, 2006, a man from the neighborhood drunkenly approached Holly’s oldest daughter. He said he knew who she really was, and that her father, Mark Collins from Crystal, Minnesota, said, “Hello.”

The color drained from Jennifer’s face as she turned around and walked inside their townhouse. The family’s secret was out. Their illicit travel abroad and tumultuous history had finally caught up with them, more than a decade later, some 4,100 miles away.

The family watched from inside as the crazed neighbor started taping up “Missing” posters from the 1990s of Jennifer and her older brother, Zachary. He wildly pointed toward the home and handed out flyers to passersby. He told them a kidnapper was living in the neighborhood, one who was wanted by the FBI.

itemprop
Jennifer and Zachary with mom Holly as children (left) and all grown up, ages 23 and 25 (right)

“She’s dangerous,” he said. “You better watch out for your kids.”

Later, he told investigators that he wanted reward money—that Americans always give out cash for things like that, Holly remembers.

That night Holly and her entire family went to the Dutch authorities. The man was right about one thing: Holly was wanted by the FBI.

“For years I’ve lived this quiet life, and now all of a sudden I’m pulled back to my past trying to convince someone to believe us,” Holly says.

Mark and Holly Collins, both teenagers, were married on December 5, 1982, in Bedford, New Hampshire. Holly was 17 years old and pregnant.

Since the day they’d met, Holly’s feelings toward Mark had been a toxic mix. As a child, Holly claims, her mother and her stepfather beat her up. So when she was a teenager and Mark would push her around, it didn’t seem as bad. “At least then we were the same size,” she says. Their marriage was brief and rocky, pocked with angry separations. In 1987 the couple parted for the last time.

Mark was at his worst when he was drunk, Holly remembers. He beat, threatened, and raped her on numerous occasions. She has hospital records documenting wrist, foot, and head injuries, among others. One doctor confirmed that a three-centimeter scar on her body was consistent with a knife wound.

The documents continue even after the couple separated. “It got to the point where every time he dropped off the kids [from visitation], he’d do something to me,” Holly says. “Punch me in the face, push me into the wall.”

Medical reports list her accidentally running into the refrigerator door, catching her arm on a shopping cart, tripping over the dog, and falling several times down the stairs. Mark testified that injuries Holly sustained while they were still together—her broken nose, shoulder injury, and black eye—could have occurred after he accidentally rolled over her in bed, or while they were playfully wrestling. By 1989 they were both living in the Twin Cities. Holly obtained an Order for Protection from Hennepin County, and Mark was told to abstain from drinking for the 24 hours prior to visitation with the children.

Reached on the phone, Mark Collins politely declined to comment for this story, but throughout the four-volume file at Hennepin County Family Court, he repeatedly denies claims of child and spousal abuse.

In October 1990, Holly and Mark were divorced. Holly was granted full physical custody of then seven-year-old Zachary and five-year-old Jennifer. Mark was given joint legal custody and visitation rights.

Fearing for their safety, Holly at times defied the court and refused to let the children go to Mark’s house. They came home with stories of how their father had hit and kicked them, she remembers. There was at least one incident where Zachary required medical care.

As a university student, Holly lived off public assistance and financial aid after the divorce, working sporadic jobs as a lobbyist, activist, and daycare provider. She mostly considered herself a full-time mother, sewing the children’s clothes, baking with them, and helping with art projects; paramount to her existence was ensuring that her children had a better childhood than her own. Every time the kids would tell her a story about how Mark hurt them, she shuddered, thinking of her own past.

When the divorce was finalized, Holly asked the judge if she could move across the country with the kids. She wanted to go back home to Massachusetts. She planned to enroll in courses at Endicott College, live with her family to save money, and work at her father’s real estate firm. She would start a new life for herself and the children.

Mark Collins filed a flurry of legal paperwork to keep them from moving. In an affidavit filed in May 1991, he argued that Holly’s motion for relocation was “the latest in her relentless quest to keep me from seeing my children and being involved in their lives…. It was made with malice, in bad faith, and solely for harassment. I love my children and try to be with them as often as I can.”

Nonetheless, on June 18, 1991, Hennepin County Referee Marybeth Dorn gave Holly permission to move with the kids to New England. Mark was awarded extended visitation rights for holidays and other breaks from school. “It appears that [Holly’s] plan to move to the New Hampshire/Massachusetts area is reasonable and will provide benefits to her and the children,” Dorn wrote.

Mark didn’t accept it. Seven months later, he filed for reversal of custody based on “deliberate visitation denials and a continual attempt to destroy my relationship with the children.” He claimed his telephone conversations with Zachary and Jennifer were strained and limited. Holly, he said, wasn’t living with her family, attending school, or doing the things she had pledged. He showed the court medical documents in which a doctor wrote that Holly seemed excessively anxious about the children’s health.

“She is overly controlling of the children,” Mark wrote in an affidavit filed in January 1992. “She will not let them talk to me privately…and she is constantly telling them what to say to me…. The children have often said they were too busy watching a video movie to talk. She has tried to distance me from the children…saying things such as ‘I don’t want to talk to him, do you?'”

The next month the case was reopened. Mark hadn’t seen the children since the previous summer. “It appears that [Holly’s] motivation to move to Massachusetts may have been to interfere with the relationship between [Mark] and minor children,” Dorn wrote. “The children’s emotional and psychological health may be harmed if they continue in the physical care of [Holly], if she continues to alienate them from [Mark] and deny visitation. There also exists concern that [Holly]…dwells on the children’s medical status, to their detriment.”

A custody hearing was scheduled for the summer. Until then, Holly and the children were to cooperate with the arranged visitation schedule.

Holly knew she wasn’t doing what she’d promised the court. She knew things hadn’t worked out as planned.

Her dreams of new beginnings were shattered upon the family’s arrival in New England. She immediately got into another custody battle over the children—this time with her mother, who Holly alleged was also abusive. Holly was granted a temporary Protective Order in New England, despite her mother and stepfather’s denial of the abuse.

Moving beyond the past was harder than Holly had thought. The further she got from Mark, the more he inserted himself into her life, Holly says. Mark would call and tell the kids that he was going to kill their mom if she ever came back. He would list the number of days until their visitation, each time saying Holly had that many left to live.

“One time he called and said that he was in Boston and that he was coming to get us,” Jennifer remembers, who was six years old at the time. “I was petrified. I gave my mother the phone and she hung it up in a panic. My father told her that he was at the airport and he was going to kill her. We ran to the car and drove and drove…

“We kept asking our mother what we were going to do and she just kept telling us not to worry. We slept in the car by the side of the ocean. In the morning my mother decided to call my father in Minnesota. She hung up the phone when he answered. We were so relieved that it was just a threat. We were happy to go home.”

All this was especially hard on Zachary. The eight-year-old would bang his head on the floor after getting off the phone with his father, Holly says. He felt the need to be the man of the house and wanted to protect his mother from Mark, but didn’t know how.

The family needed counseling, so Holly sought the help of outpatient family therapist Fred Emilianowicz in Salem, Massachusetts. “Mrs. Collins and the children were clearly in crisis when they began treatment and remain in crisis to this day. Their crisis centers around the children’s pending 10 day visit with Mr. Collins,” Emilianowicz wrote the court on March 26, 1992.

Zachary had told the therapist that he would run away before going back to Minnesota. He told of having recurring nightmares of his father chasing him, and said he believed that if his father caught him, he would be killed. During therapy, the child drew an eight-page depiction of his life. On paper he penciled his father slamming his mother into a wall while he and Jennifer hid in a nearby closet. The story ends when the children are rescued and taken to safety in New England and Mark is decapitated by a guillotine at a nearby castle. “If I could get rid of Mark this is where I would do it,” the child wrote at the bottom of the page.

“His artwork is a reproduction of post-traumatic events commonly observed in abused children,” Emilianowicz wrote, warning that it was not in the best interest of the children to see their father. “[I]f the court feels that the children’s visit to Minnesota should go forward, then a social worker should be assigned to visit with the children daily, to ensure their safety.”

Dr. Philip Reimherr in Lynn, Massachusetts, saw Zachary on referral. After visiting with the boy, the M.D. echoed Emilianowicz’s concerns. “It is significant that patient is so afraid of his father, becomes so angry upon learning that he has to visit, and has a return of suicidal thoughts in conjunction with this forced visitation. When asked why he is so afraid of his father, patient became quite sad and quiet before responding that his father ‘has been mean, has hit, and has strangled me.'”

The next month, on the day visitation was to commence, Holly filed for an Order for Protection requesting visitation be suspended on the grounds that Mark physically abused the children. Soon after, the court ordered Zachary and Jennifer back to Minnesota for an investigation. Mark was granted supervised visitation during the trip, and Hennepin County child psychologist Susan DeVries began meeting with the children.

“I could provide the children with a much more stable environment,” Mark wrote to the court in December. “I live in a home and have worked at the same job for six years, which are both great sources of stability. …I beg the court to put the children in my care, where they will be removed from these situations, and be given the proper, stable, and loving environment they deserve.”

In May, Zachary and Jennifer were sent back to New England to finish school. Holly was given strict instructions that the children must return come summer. Worried about the upcoming hearing, she took them to the Children’s Hospital in Boston. There, internationally recognized child abuse expert Dr. Eli Newberger supervised an abuse assessment. In June he wrote the court asking to delay the family’s return so he could finish his evaluation. Several weeks into his appraisal, his tentative conclusion was “that these children and their mother have been quite seriously victimized by their father.”

Both children had reported abuse to the doctor when their mother wasn’t in the room. They said they “did not want to go to Minnesota and see Mark because he hits them and is mean to them.” When asked to explain more, Zachary said, “I’m tired of talking about it. You’re the 11th person I’ve had to talk to about it!”

The court denied Newberger’s request and in July the children and their mother returned to Minnesota for the hearing. Friends, family, and even a priest came to Holly’s defense. Her lawyer took the case pro bono.

Judge Michael J. Davis, who was assigned to the proceedings, discounted Emilianowicz’s testimony because he hadn’t been in contact with Mark by the time of the trial. Other testimony on Holly’s behalf was minimized. One expert was accused of being biased because she didn’t know enough about the case and was said to be an advocate for battered women.

In making his decision, Judge Davis put substantial weight on statements from the children’s therapist in Minnesota, Dr. David Cline. “[He] is the only clinician involved in this case who has had extensive contact with both children, the parents, and the step-parent,” Judge Davis wrote in his January 1993 amended order. While both children told Cline they were abused by their father, Cline told the court they were “skilled accusers” not to be believed.

When around Mark, the children would “turn off these hostile stances and play genuinely and happily with their father…. The children say that they have been physically abused by their father but the story frequently changes. For example, on one occasion…Zachary told me that his father jerked him by the arm and threw him into his room. Later when he was with his father, he said that his father had taken him by the arm and showed him to his room.”

Guardian ad litem Michal London, along with other court-appointed custody evaluators, stated that the children seemed at peace in their father’s presence. “While with their mother, the children express fear and anxiety over seeing their father. However, upon observation the children quickly become relaxed with Mr. Collins and appear to enjoy the time they spend with him,” London reported. Still working at Hennepin County, London said he was unable to comment for this story due to privacy rules within the guardian ad litem system.

Mark’s “current behavior does not suggest a violent nature,” he wrote. “[I]t is quite difficult to determine how much of the fears expressed by the children are their own or that which they have learned from their mother.”

DeVries, the court-appointed child psychologist, also questioned the validity of the children’s claims. She, too, declined to comment for this story, but testified at the time that Zachary spoke with a flat affect and didn’t appear upset or angry when describing the abuse. Jennifer also seemed rehearsed. It appeared as though Holly had coached them.

From that point on, testimony centered on Holly’s parenting, not Mark’s. Previously diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and chronic depression, Holly wasn’t exactly the most stable mom around. A psychological evaluation done by Dr. Ronald Jorgenson, with the Hennepin County Bureau of Community Corrections, found that Holly had a “great difficulty in trusting anyone, and that she is consistently vigilant in efforts to prevent anyone from causing her some type of harm or doing her injustice.” While Jorgenson did not find evidence of major mental illness or maladjustment, the possibility exists that “this individual may experience delusional beliefs from time to time.” DeVries testified that Holly “may suffer from Munchausen syndrome by proxy, a disorder in which a parent invents, induces, or exaggerates medical symptoms in a child,” court documents note. In her evaluation, DeVries cited the children’s numerous evaluations and visits with clinicians and Holly’s anxious behavior regarding the children’s heath.

Just days before Christmas, Judge Davis reversed custody of the children, then ages seven and nine. Even though the court did find that Holly had been abused by Mark, neither Child Protective Services nor family court was able to substantiate the children’s claims of abuse. “[T]he court finds the record contains sufficient evidence that domestic abuse occurred between the parties,” the judgment noted, but “[Holly] suffers from a personality disorder. The personality disorder respondent suffers from includes, but is not limited to, Munchausen syndrome by proxy. Whatever the label, the type or types, of emotional difficulty [Holly] suffers from is extremely resistant to treatment and requires years of long-term psychotherapy…. [T]he court finds that the minor children are at great physical and emotional risk if they remain in custody of [Holly].”

It was 11:30 a.m. on December 22, 1992, and Jennifer Collins was hysterical. Everyone was gathered at the home of Terri Dunham, a friend of Holly’s who was considered a neutral party by the court, for the custody transfer. Jennifer was clutching her mother and weeping uncontrollably. “I cannot even imagine anything traumatizing this child more than being carried out to someone that she was so terrified to be with,” Dunham recollected in an affidavit to the court. “Zachary Collins was perhaps even more disturbing to see, as he was totally devoid of all emotion. He could not speak, or even move without being prodded; he walked out of my home as if he were a ‘zombie’, his movements were stiff and stilted and it was as if he was willing himself to even breathe. I, to this day, have nightmares about this—I fear for the children’s safety.”

It was a day Jennifer Collins says she’ll never forget. Her mother gave them their Christmas presents early, including a stuffed animal sprayed with Holly’s perfume.

“She picked me up and hugged me and told me that everything would be all right,” Jennifer remembers. “At one point I was relieved when my mom told them that she couldn’t do it. She said that she couldn’t make us go with him. Then Michael London grabbed me and pulled me out of my mother’s arms. I wouldn’t let go. I remember all these people prying my fingers loose from my mom’s dress. When Michael London had me, I kept kicking and screaming, ‘Mommy, I want my Mommy.’ I told Michael London, ‘But he hurts me and he hurts my brother.’ I still remember him saying, ‘I know,’ as he handed me to my father. That was the worst day of my life.”

Word quickly spread of Davis’s decision. At the Hennepin County Government Center, Holly and her supporters handed out flyers with pictures of Jennifer and Zachary: “Please help protect these children…. The Collins children are still reporting that they are currently being hurt by Mr. Collins! This is an outrage!”

The Star Tribune picked up the story in February 1993 in a rare 2,000-word article that ran above the fold on the front page of the Metro section. “The Collins case is a legal house of mirrors,” wrote reporter Kurt Chandler.

Armed with expert testimony and affidavits, Holly had arguments that weren’t limited to speculation and activists looking for a cause. Doctors involved with the case came to her defense, too.

Newberger challenged the court, saying that even if the children appear comfortable with their father, that doesn’t necessarily mean they are safe. Newberger called the court’s presumed diagnosis of Holly “flimsy hypothesizing” and contended he had not seen sufficient evidence to support such accusations.

Emilianowicz wrote to express his “grave concern for Zachary and Jennifer’s safety, now that they are in the sole custody of their father…. In my work with Holly Ann and the children, I never had any reason to believe that they were being subjected to unnecessary medical or mental health treatment. Nor did I have any reason to believe that they were being abused or neglected while they were in their mother’s care…

“Zachary and Jennifer are quite fearful of their father. Just because they appear comfortable with him and seek out his affection during a supervised visit does not mean they are not at risk during unsupervised times. Most abusers are skilled manipulators and present extremely well around individuals they want to impress. It is my opinion that Zachary and Jennifer remain at high risk for further abuse, now that they are in sole custody of their father.”

The family’s longtime pediatrician, Dr. David L. Estrin of Minnetonka, also spoke out on Holly’s behalf. “From all of my contacts with the children and their mother, I have seen no evidence for Munchausen syndrome by proxy. I do not feel that Holly Ann’s children are at any risk at all when under her unsupervised care,” he wrote.

Even Holly’s court-ordered psychologist expressed skepticism.

“[M]y understanding of this case is that I am to treat Holly Ann as if she suffers from Munchausen syndrome by proxy although no one has specifically diagnosed Holly Ann as having this disorder,” Julia Davis wrote. “Nowhere in the materials I have read, including Family Court Service documents, does anyone clearly diagnose this disorder, nor is any one diagnosis specifically endorsed. This is a serious omission that needs clarification…I assume then that this is my prerogative and responsibility.”

The next month Davis, a licensed psychologist and Ph.D., wrote the court with her findings. She was not convinced Munchausen was the correct diagnosis. Holly’s problems were “the result of marital abuse or battering. Additionally, she has described a history of childhood abuse by her mother that has been substantiated, at least in part, by court actions in the state of Massachusetts….

“In my own interactions with professionals in this case, some have indicated to me that they do not believe any abuse has in fact occurred. I find it deeply troubling that professionals should be quick to believe that which has not been established in fact (MSbP) and yet disregard that which has been found to be true by the court (spousal abuse)…. I do believe that Holly Ann was repeatedly victimized, first by her family and subsequently by her ex-husband.”

On the one-year anniversary of the custody reversal, Holly and her supporters handed out yellow ribbons along with 65 pages of documentation on the case. “It has been one year today since these children were taken hostage by their abusive father, Mark Collins…. The Collins children are still reporting abuse…yet their pleas for help have been ignored by Hennepin County officials,” the opening page reads.

Both the Star Tribune and the Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women filed affidavits with the court protesting a gag rule put in place by Hennepin County Judge Charles Porter. (Porter declined to be interviewed for this story.)

“[P]rotesters distributed ‘wanted’ posters bearing the names of county officials and wore cloth gags over their mouths to symbolize Porter’s order,” the newspaper reported.

The court didn’t waver in its decision, though, and continued its evaluation of Holly’s parenting abilities. When it was revealed that she was pregnant and had delivered another child from a different father, Judge Davis, who declined to comment for this story, demanded reports “addressing the fact that Holly kept the pregnancy a secret, and how such actions may affect visitation with Jennifer and Zachary.”

Judge Porter, who was then presiding over the case, chimed in: “The Collins children maintained the secret of Holly Ann Collins’s pregnancy, without any betrayals to their father, therapist, or other professionals involved in the course of this litigation, functioning as their mother’s accomplices in keeping this ‘secret.’ This secrecy graphically illustrates the control of Holly Ann Collins over the children and their vulnerability to her direction in the formulation of her own agenda.”

Holly says the pregnancy wasn’t a secret. It was a private matter meant to be left out of the courts. Besides, despite previous findings that she was too sick to care for Zachary and Jennifer, Hennepin County Family Court allowed her full physical custody of the infant.

In August 1993, Porter issued an order reaffirming Mark’s custody of Zachary and Jennifer and denying Holly’s request for unsupervised visitation. “At some point, this intergenerational family war must stop,” the judge wrote. “The emotional safety of the children has been and remains of paramount concern to this court.”

In July 1994 the State of Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld Davis’s original order. The District Court was correct in ruling that Mark Collins did domestically abuse his wife, but it also granted him custody with appropriate evidence and application of the law. The custody decision would remain unchanged.

“It just didn’t make sense,” says Holly. “If they thought I was mentally ill, or too traumatized, they should have taken the kids and put them in a safe place. You don’t give them to a man who beats.”

During supervised visits with their mother the children would sneak her notes pleading for help: “Mommy, please help us. He’s hurting us. We are alone. Come get us.”

Left with few options, Holly knew she had to do something. “I promised them I would come within two weeks. The children and I had made a sort of appointment. They were waiting for me to come rescue them.”

When the phone at their father’s house rang one afternoon in June, Jennifer could hardly hide her excitement. “Even though I was terrified of getting caught by my father…I couldn’t wait to go back to my mom.”

On June 30, around 3:30 p.m., two juveniles left their residence on Cloverdale Avenue in Crystal and didn’t return, according to the police report. When their father, Mark Collins, went to look for them, witnesses said they saw the missing children with their mother at the video store. The three hugged, got in her car, and disappeared.

Holly drove for 20 hours that night before finally stopping to cut and dye everyone’s hair. She put a dress on her baby son, and smeared the entire family with self-tanner. “I totally changed our identity,” she recalls.

At 28 years old, Holly had no real plan. She spent months secretly traveling around North America trying to figure out where she and her three children would go.

After reading about a woman in a similar situation who was allowed refugee status in New Zealand, Collins and her kids boarded a plane. “I was sitting there with my fingers crossed, worried that something would happen and the plane wouldn’t take off for some reason,” remembers Jennifer, who was nine at the time. “But once it was up, it was freedom. It was safety. Who knew leaving the United States would be a moment of freedom?”

During a layover in the Netherlands, the family was detained for not having appropriate paperwork. When the Dutch authorities threatened to send them back to the United States, Holly begged for mercy. Without even knowing what the word meant, she told them she wanted asylum. “I was just trying to think of every phrase I had heard in the movies. I was just trying to say anything so we could stay. I knew it wasn’t going to work, but I had to prove to my kids that I had tried everything.”

Holly was granted a trial. For nearly three years the family was shuffled through refugee centers as the slow wheels of justice proceeded. For months, the family lived in a bungalow the size of her former living room in St. Louis Park. They shared the space with three others. Zachary and Jennifer pushed their cots next to their mom’s to sleep at night.

They had nothing. Holly had only brought two bags abroad. One was filled with clothing and another with legal documents. “I went from having everything, a house, a car, a boat, a dog, and the kids—what would be considered a perfect American life—and I was suddenly standing in line for food at this refugee center thinking, What am I doing here? I just couldn’t understand how I ended up like that.”

In 1997 Holly was granted refugee status based on the European Treaty on Human Rights. “There were reports that made clear the ex-husband was violent,” wrote her lawyer in the Netherlands, Els Lucas, in an email. “The eldest son had a scar on his skull which was supposedly caused by maltreatment by his father. Holly was and is still so strongly scared even of the idea to be confronted with [Mark].”

When word of the ruling got to Holly, she was speechless. After so many years in limbo, she and the children were going to become members of society again. The Dutch government provided Holly and family with a place to live, and she was allowed to foster abandoned children left at refugee camps. At one point, she says, there were 13 kids in her home. Three of them—orphans from Sierra Leone, Togo, and Gambia—became permanent members of the family. The children were enrolled in school, and slowly things started to seem normal again.

As the years passed, Holly came to love the cluttered village where she sought refuge. Years after her arrival she gave birth to more children of her own. Today, she is a mother of 10. She won’t disclose how many are adopted or biologically hers because she doesn’t want any of them to think she loves them any less. Holly doesn’t work, but spends her time caring for her five young children and volunteering with war orphans.

“I have a dream life right now,” she says. “I just can’t believe I did it. We ended up safe. I have a normal life as a simple Dutch woman. Everything moves slowly here, but it moves on. Everyone either says I was a hero or a criminal, but I was neither. I was a nice, sweet mom looking out for my kids.”

In the rubbish disposal behind Holly’s last known Minnesota address, investigators found a letter that Holly had written to those she left behind. “I cannot stand by and let my children suffer any longer,” she wrote. “I am aware of the consequences, but the time that I may provide my children with happiness, love, and safety will be worth any penalty I must endure…. I must stay away until the children are old enough to have their voices heard and listened to in the courtroom. If, at anytime, my children ask to return, I assure you that I shall turn myself in.”

Fourteen years have passed since that summer, and the Collins children want to come back. “It’s our home,” says Zachary, now 25. “It’s always felt like home. Even though I’ve spent more than half my life here, and I’ve gotten used to it, it never really felt like the States did. The States feels like home.”

The children say they don’t want to return without their mother. As of July, the Netherlands has refused to extradite Holly, despite the active federal and county charges against her. When she and the children disappeared, Holly was charged by the FBI for leaving the state to avoid arrest or prosecution, a charge often used to give authorities jurisdiction for arrest. The offense holds a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, but attorney Michael Dees, representing the United States in the federal case, says it is doubtful something like this would go to trial.

Hennepin County District Court charged Holly with one count of deprivation of parental rights, an offense punishable by a maximum of two years in prison and a $4,000 fine. However, under the law in Minnesota, the presumed appropriate sentence would be probation, says Deputy County District Attorney Pat Diamond, who will oversee the proceedings if and when Holly returns.

Mark Collins, among others, is one of several victims in this case, Diamond adds. Mark put a lot of time, energy, and faith into the court system, but he never got the results. “This isn’t like tax evasion where you can just mail a check…. What would you mail to Mark Collins to put him where he should have been? He’s now had 14 years without contact or at least without custody of these two children, so how do you give that back?”

There is a defense for deprivation of parental rights in Minnesota, Diamond continues. If Holly comes back and the case goes to trial, she will be given the opportunity to show that she genuinely feared for the children’s safety. “But she needs to come back and answer.” Later, he adds, “Look, we are not going to negotiate with someone who is in a country with a non-extradition treaty, fleeing from a crime. That’s just not how we do things.”

Holly’s lawyer Alan Rosenfeld, national expert on abuse and custody law, says Holly plans to come back and face trial. She wants the evidence exposed, but won’t return to the United States until bail stipulations are set to her liking. She still has five minor children, and the three she fled with could be considered witnesses in the case. Holly won’t return until it is assured she can have contact with her kids leading up to the trial, Rosenfeld says.

Diamond doubts that would be a problem. “I don’t think giving her another month or so with them would make any real difference in bail proceedings. She’s had 14 years with those children to tell them what to say.”

In the last few weeks, the Collins case has sparked national discussion. Stop FamilyViolence.org launched an email campaign, sending over 3,000 messages in 12 hours to Minnesota lawmakers asking for the charges to be dropped.

The Collins case represents a glaring and common error in the U.S. Family Court system, says Dr. Joyanna Silberg, clinician and executive vice president of the Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence. Often it’s easier to believe the mother is crazy than to believe a father would hurt the children, even if there is documented abuse.

Silberg is currently working with U.S. House of Representatives majority leader, Congressman Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland), on federal reforms to better protect children from abuse. Hoyer asked Marlene Kaufmann, a lawyer with the Independent Congressional Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to review the case.

“From what I reviewed so far it seems rather peculiar,” says Kaufmann. “It appears the court did find that there had been domestic violence, that there was abuse. Holly was awarded the children and then less than a year later, with apparently no major change in circumstances, she’s told she’s crazy. To me, the proof is in the pudding…. She’s raised two beautiful children.”

At 25, Zachary is studying psychology at a Dutch university. He’s in a fraternity, plays trumpet, and sings in a band. Jennifer, too, is studying psychology. A debater and Model United Nations participant, she has met Kofi Annan, the president of Trinidad and Tobago, and the Queen of the Netherlands.

Every year on June 30 the family celebrates their escape, usually with lobster. “We call it our ‘Gotcha Day,'” Jennifer says. “There is so much evidence that they knew what was going on. I told them what was happening, but they didn’t listen because I was a child…. I’m 23 years old now. As an adult, you have a much different view. You can stick up for yourself and that’s what I’m trying to do.”

http://www.citypages.com/news/battered-woman-becomes-american-refugee-in-amsterdam-6683506


No Way Out But One on Netflix

When a family court judge gave custody to the identified abuser, it was Holly Collins- a Mother from Minnesota who had two choices; suffer the ongoing abuse she had fled when seeking a divorce or help her children to safety.

Holly Collin’s Story is unique, No American Mother before her has received asylum and protection from Violence and Child Abuse…Holly had to flee the United States to protect herself and her children.  Her story of Domestic Violence and Court Ordered Abuse of her children however is not unique (1 in 3 women experience forms of DV). These same events are being experienced by mothers and children across our Nation, and around the world.

When mothers report abuse they lose custody 85% of the time.  In Gonzales Vs USA the Supreme Court decision stated that Law Enforcement is not obligated to enforce restraining orders.  There is no protection.  No ERA in the USA.  This first world nation has third world problems and it is about time we own up to the abuse of women in a patriarchal society.

Today, America mothers are being conditioned to shut up about abuse or lose custody.  Your children are safer with you 50% of the time then without you 100%.  Do not call CPS if you suspect abuse, the catch 22 is that if you report abuse you are more likely to lose custody than protect your young. Law enforcement fails to protect.  In the US, its the relationship of the perpetrator to the victim that will determine whether they prosecute. Those who run are considered fugitives we consider them heroes.

In America today, victims of abuse and their children have no way out but one.

RICO

Anna M Lambert in response to FAMILY COURT INJUSTICE 

the state courts cases that where heard in those non compliant administrative family courts are not even real courts but a criminal action involved in RICO and RACKETEERING incidents and those JUDGES and ATTORNEYS involved in such CRIMINAL action after cases go through FEDERAL COURTS can and will lose their PRIVILEGE to serve in their current position and their right to practice law will and can be REVOKED by the actions of their VICTIMS across this great nation which there alone parents with even closed cases can get their cases investigated for JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT and get their closed cases reviewed , and judgement over turned and children returned Google US courts and forms for civil case anyone can file anyone can establish their own case and due to the fact these CPS case are Administrative courts and are non compliant to Judicial rules they are already in several violations of conflict of interest which is JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT which is grounds for every case to be reviewed and over ruled when an injunction is implied

RICO and Racketeering every CPS case is criminal intent to defraud the federal government funding if parents have not been charged with neglect or abuse the state workers and foster parents even manipulate the court by their fake cry acts , talk of desperate criminals that have to resort to crying on the stand pretending to worry about children and judges are stupid enough to fall far these pitiful acts , when has a court become a stage for pathetic criminal actors that puit on a play for profit, and yes families have the CD to verify these action by state officials and placement providers, COMPLAINT (42 U.S.C. § 1983 Interference with Parental Rights, Retaliation, Privacy and Racketeering) (42 U.S.C. § 1983 RETALIATION AND INVASION OF PRIVACY, INTERFERENCE WITH PARENTAL RIGHTS AND TORT OF INVASION OF PRIVACY)
The allegations set forth above are fully incorporated herein by this

…This allegation involves the acts of those Defendants who stopped
reunification of child /children in case _____________

The above actions constitutes a scheme or artifice to defraud Plaintiffs of custody of ___________ __________ to damage or eliminate Plaintiffs claims against Defendants set forth in this litigation by manipulating _______________into believing the mother had drugs in system which was later proven fraud and falsified, that court needed to protect _________ and to make false allegations of abuse to assure termination of Plaintiffs parental rights in both cases

… Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs parental interest in biological children constitutes a property interest that Defendants knowingly and intentionally schemed to deprive Plaintiffs of by manufacturing false allegations of physical and potential sexual abuse.

. This racketeering count, based on the facts set forth above, is brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1962, with the predicate offenses of scheme or artifice to defraud pursuant to18 U.S.C. §1962(c), retaliation against a witness ( 18 U.S.C. §1513(e) and witness tampering (CR) 18 U.S.C. § 1513(b).

COUNT THREE 18 USC§1962(d) CONSPIRACY
… Plaintiffs incorporates herein all the preceding numbered paragraphs as
though fully set forth herein.

… By reason of the aforesaid circumstances and events, the Racketeering
Defendants, together and with the known and unknown, unlawfully conspired together
and otherwise acted, and are currently conspiring together and otherwise are acting, in
such manner as to violate the provision of Title 18 USC 1962(a) and Title 18 USC
1962 (c) in violation of Title 18 USC 1962 (d).

… By reason of Defendants conspiring to violate said provisions of 18 USC
the Plaintiffs (a) have monetarily injured in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, the
precise amount of which is presently unknown and will be proved at trial and
(b)continue to be damaged and hurt by the illegal acts

COUNT FOUR 18 USC 1962(a) DIVESTITURE
… Plaintiff incorporates herein all proceeding numbered paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

… At all times relevant hereto, the Racketeering Defendants have collectively constituted an enterprise, as defined in 18 USC s 1961 (4) to wit, an association which enterprise has been engaged in and the activities of which affect interstate commerce. As such the defendants have witnessed tampered and retaliated against a witness and exploited them under 18 USC 1962(c).

In committing the above referenced actions and/or omissions, the
Retaliation Defendants, and each of them, acted under color of state law, and engaged
in conduct that was the proximate cause of a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of
America, including but not limited to retaliating against Plaintiffs for asserting their
constitutional right to seek redress of grievances from government and for exercising
their First amendment right to defend themselves from the false allegations raised by
Defendants and providing ___courts___ with Plaintiff’s mental health report prepared by___state recommended provider evaluation __
thereby violating Plaintiff’s civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for the
above described violations of Plaintiffs Constitutional rights. Plaintiffs are entitled to
all rights, remedies, in law or in equity, available to them under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiffs have suffered the loss of custody and time with and suffered
humiliation and degradation because of Defendants’ Unconstitutional acts.

… Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their reasonable costs and attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
… Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages

Judging the Judges

Stop Judiging

Image by Stuart Miles @freedigitalphotos.net

Is Anybody Judging the Judges? The California Legislature Wants Answers

A joint committee of the California Legislature has authorized an audit of the Commission on Judicial Performance, the only entity that can discipline or remove a state judge.

A coalition of two dozen groups reflecting a wide range of interests, led by the Center for Judicial Excellence wrote letters, made calls and sent emails to urge the Joint Legislative Audit Committee (JLAC) to call for the audit.

“The Center for Public Integrity gave California an ‘F grade’ on its 2015 report card for judicial accountability, said Kathleen Russell, the executive director of the Center for Judicial Excellence in a press release.

Continue Reading: http://sandiegofreepress.org/2016/08/is-anybody-judging-the-judges-the-california-legislature-wants-answers/


Most audits in public sector governance are political and worthless. Even if they uncover deficiencies, abuse and fraud, change is usually not forthcoming.

Below is an article from 2013 that clearly demonstrates the ineffectiveness of audits in the public sector. The MN legislative auditor perforrmed 5 consecutive audits on the Dept. of Human Services and found several deficiencies, but guess what?  Despite the fact that error, abuse and fraud were identified, no changes have been made and DHS has not been sanctioned by the federal government.

Audit: Problems at Minn. Human Services Unresolved   

KSTP  | 7-11-13 | Stephen Tellier  “Sorry the Page You are Looking for Doesn’t Exist”

Fortunately, Red Herring Alert has obtained a copy of this article!

Audit: Problems at Minn. Human Services Unresolved   7-11-13 | Stephen Tellier 

A scathing audit released Thursday, July 11, finds systemic problems at the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) that still haven’t been fixed — more than two years after a 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS investigation brought them to light.

DHS oversees about $9 billion in total Medicaid spending and another $1.4 billion in federal funds for welfare, child care assistance, as well as several other programs. Auditors say the state simply isn’t doing a good enough job keeping track of that taxpayer money.

And this is far from the first time they’ve come down hard on DHS.

“I believe that errors, abuse and fraud exist in this program,” said Cecile Ferkul, deputy legislative auditor with the Office of the Legislative Auditor, during our investigation in 2011.

More than two years later, Ferkul said little has changed. “It can be frustrating that they’re not getting resolved,” Ferkul said Thursday.  She oversaw the audit, which reads like a bureaucratic broken record.

Auditors found DHS is not making sure Minnesotans who receive welfare and child care assistance are eligible for those benefits – and that fraud can still go undetected. Auditors also say DHS has “significant, ongoing noncompliance” with federal requirements – a problem first identified in 2009 and now cited in five consecutive audits.

“When the state has a program that’s spending $9 billion, they have a responsibility to make sure it’s going to the right people,” Ferkul said.

DHS has admitted to the problems found. The department has promised to fix them after each audit, but hasn’t. The department told us no one was available for an on-camera interview, but responded with a statement from Deputy Commissioner Charles Johnson:

“The auditor’s report found we are largely in compliance with all requirements related to the federally-funded programs we administer. We agree with the audit’s conclusions about the areas that need improvement and are moving forward to ensure these issues are resolved. We are committed to running these programs in the most cost-effective way possible to best serve the people of Minnesota.”

Auditors say the department’s broken record is full of broken promises.

“They have now estimated that they’ll be able to resolve that finding by December of 2015 — still two and a 1/2 years out,” Ferkul said.

The audit also found that the state failed to request $139 million in Medicaid payments from the federal government. That money has since been recouped.

Despite the audit echoing previous problems, DHS has not been hit with sanctions by the federal government. But auditors say that is a possibility.


8/10/2016 Press Release: California Judicial Watchdog Faces First Audit in 56 Years (PDF)

Excerpt:“The audit request received support from the state’s powerful Service Employees International Union (SEIU California), the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence (CPEDV) and the Sacramento Chapter of the NAACP, along with more than a dozen court reform and child protection organizations. A number of audit supporters have been working to expose widespread corruption in the family court system that many say has created an epidemic of judicial trafficking of abused children away from their protective parents and into abusive homes during divorces and separations.


These groups continually ignore the money matters and help cover up, ignore, and derail the very important discussions on grants use and corporation fraud.

The Center for Judicial Excellence promotes the narrative that “the system is broken.” 

Read more about the “Broken Courts Crowd” from familycourtmatters.wordpress.com below:

Family Courts: Crippled, Incompetent and Corrupt — or just “Broken”?

In 2002, California NOW put out a report declaring that the family courts were “Crippled, Incompetent and Corrupt.”

Meanwhile, many coalitions of professionals, have popularized the phrase that they aren’t corrupt, they’re “broken.”

Which is it?  Because, that’s a good question and depending on the answer, a different response is called for.  I have cited both references below, and blogged both of them before.

Unfortunately, I don’t see any public platform where there would be an open debate, with an audience!

Our Courts are Corrupt v. Our Courts are Broken?

Instead, the different sides, Balkanized, put out their own materials, and own conferences.  Generally speaking the “our Courts are Broken” conferences are run by some of the would-be fixers, and this viewpoint has much more financial backing!

But — the question CAN be answered, and has. However, the answer is psychologically disturbing and very unpleasant, and to verify it, most people would have to take out some private time to read the record.  And that’s not what most people’s minds are tuned to these days.

Mine only is because I don’t like losing complete contact with my kids overnight, and thereby losing my ability to self-support, or a period of time in which to rebuild what was destroyed in the last boxing round, which court events when combined with family events, are.  I also didn’t like my children losing their right to child support when it was in serious arrears, or their contact with an ethical working mother.  The existence of the family law system parallel to a criminal law system is logical dilemma.

Is there a formula for when the identical behavior is considered criminal versus a family dispute, or is it a coin toss?  Does it depend on local politics, the money in one’s family, luck, or is there a strategic plan (as yet unexposed) which the public and the peopel running through the courts don’t know?

If no one cares to give me a reasonable explanation why these things are so in my state (other states) and this country — if this is business as usual, then either it has to change or I will seek a safer place to live out what remains of my life, if one exists Period. So, I look things up until things that fit with the facts and the record make themselves known, but I am always interested in validating or invalidating statements; are they reasonable or unreasonable, or ridiculous. If they are borderline ridiculous (the root word for “ridiculous” is Latin for “to laugh.”), then who is promoting these ridiculous viewpoints, and where’s the profit in them?

Now, the profit is not that hard to track — it’s objective. It takes work to track, but it can be found (even the LACK of incorporation, nonprofit 990 tax returns, etc. can be “found,” i.e., when the group says it’s a nonprofit, and the IRS says it’s not, and hasn’t been — that’s a found fact….)

RE:  “Our Broken Courts” —

Amazingly, even families (often mothers) who have been more than just “broken” by the allegedly broken courts — they are “broke” financially, devastated emotionally, and some are homeless, others have been killed, and many have no real contact with their own children. others may have contact, but are paying heavily (that’s paying a lot financially) to do so — they have been put in supervised visitation themselves!  yet, they continue to endorse, listen to, and socially etc. support others who are promoting the “broken” viewpoint.

But, they have taken up the phrase themselves, along with phrases calling themselves losers (“Mothers of Lost Children” being a phrase that calls for the emotion of desolation, but moreover, it associates “mothers” with the word “Losers.”  A better word would be “stolen” children….)   Other emotional adjectives, even if true, engrain the trauma into the group name:  “Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference,” focuses on the language of battering.   Etc.

I pulled this segment out of the middle of the last post, which was about the quality of the TAGGS database, and believe this topic is more than timely right now.  I also (obviously) expanded it.

The answer is surprising and informative.  By getting to it, I believe anyone will be better equipped as a citizen here, children or no children.  But, you must make up your mind where you stand sooner or later.  I am asking those that are NOT part of the expansive business empire of the courts to make that “sooner.”  Thanks for reading this post!

Continue Reading: https://familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/family-courts-crippled-incompetent-and-corrupt-or-just-broken/

Still Fighting from the Other Side

Obituary: Dale Nathan, family court critic, dies at 81

By Star Tribune             April 12, 2016 — 9:32pm

itemprop

Dale Nathan

If not for Dale Nathan, two Lakeville teens missing for more than two years may never have been found and reunited with their father.

Not that Nathan was happy about that. About two months ago, he told the Star Tribune that the reunification was a “tragedy,” alleging it was another example of corrupt courts putting children with abusive parents.

Nathan, a longtime attorney who became an outspoken critic of the family justice system, died of lymphoma Saturday. The Eagan resident was 81

Below is the complaint Dale Nathan filed against the Lakeville Police Dept. prior to his death in April of 2016.

 

Click on documents to zoom to review full complaint.

 

 

Healthy Marriage~Responsible Fatherhood & Faith~Based Grants . . . We Know What the Game Is!

HMRF A

Let’s Get Honest! Blog

Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family –and “Conciliation” — Courts’ Operations, Practices, and History

Note To Readers: See New Page “Just HHS, Just Georgia, Just HMRF” grants

Publicizing my new pageHHS Grantees, Just Georgia, Just HMRF (CFDA 93086), May 13, 2016, Report Run. Take a look!  You will see it in the right sidebar, atop a list labeled “Vital Info/Links.” Scroll or “page-down” below a green-background rectangle of text (“Contributions Appreciated” section) to find “Vital Links.”

Also see this related (or, “what inspired it”) 5/12/2016 post:  Despite Truly Funky Tax Returns, HHS Remains Loyal (2010-2015) to One Faith-Based (under Two Diff’t EIN#s, ONE of which the IRS acknowledges#) in Stone Mountain–or is it Conyers?– Georgia

But first and FYI in the cream-colored, fine-print, maroon-bordered box right below, I also put a link to a “Congressional Research Service” (CRS) 12/11/2012 Report showing the Origins of HHS, certain Presidential Powers, and some Recent Developing Trends, and possibly already passed, House and Senate bills re-instituting those Presidential Powers (odd capitalization there deliberate).

Recommended Reading:  This CRS link, “Presidential Reorganization Authority, History, Recent Initiatives, and Options for Congress” (Henry B. Hogue, Dec. 11, 2012), has a Summary which explains a request to renew this authority was made January 2012 by President Obama, and explains how we got the “Federal Security Agency –>>  Health Education and Welfare ==> Health and Human Services  + (separately) Department of Education.

[An extended version of this box recurs below, while I talk some about the situation]…

I might start posting this link at the top of ALL posts until the message sinks in that existing federal agencies are in a state of constant transition, and sometimes re-organization, and we ought to get a basic read on where they came from — and in which direction they are now going.  For, example, does this direction EVER include reducing budgets based on having actually solved any problems they were set up to solve, or curtailing grants streams the grants streams were set up to resolve? And if not, does that not reflect (badly) on either the operation of, or perhaps even the original intentions of, those who pushed for the funding streams in the first place? (“Who” entails both individuals and corporate, often nonprofit “persons” run by certain individuals).

Or, are we going continue, as we do now, sponsoring an UNENDING stream of funding for the behavioral/mental health/social control categories** relating to the family court systems:

Batterer Intervention Programming seeking to further classify Batterer typologies, and simultaneously and opposing the concept that battering is actually “bad,” while attempting to behaviorally modify the batterers, AND, co-parenting coaching in an UNENDING stream attempting to change the behavior of the spouse or parent that protests battering, AND an Unending stream of grants encouraging teenagers to abstain from sex as a way out of poverty (using money diverted from funds that might otherwise more directly help their parents out of poverty, i.e., “TANF”) (“Abstinence Education”) AND so forth.[*as opposed to “medical research and development” or “curtailing the outbreak of contagious diseases” category under which the public health system originated..]

Thus, through these self-contradictory funding streams, the public is forced to separately fund under the banner of men’s rights (to their families, i.e., families as property rights), and women’s rights to not be assaulted or subjected to violence in the name of family (i.e., women, including mothers and the children they have given birth to NOT as an adjunct form of property owned by the men, including fathers), and the institutions (family courts) in which the staged custody battles take place, propped up in part (and — I do show this — the larger part) by Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood funding, and at that point NOT significantly protected by the Domestic Violence Prevention funding.

Meanwhile, as this built-in funding and “federal policy position” conflict facilitates generation after generation of children growing up witnessing abuse and experienced adults somewhat confused on whether or not it’s a crime, or a social disease, or the fault of their mothers’ or fathers’ lack of “communications skills,” obviously, there is from the USDOJ a Defending Children’s Initiative, plus Task force on Children Exposed to Violence.

Some of these children then, periodically, may run away, which then can be blamed on the mother and generate more criminal cases.  She can be hunted down, or they can be hunted down, at which point the Reunification Services can be ordered — a good deal, if you’re in that business.

The runaway children, and I’m talking now about those  running away from the abusive households to which the family courts “re-aligned” them under Promoting Healthy Marriage, Access and Visitation (etc.) at times MAY enter the foster care system (more HHS funding), OR, they may become runaway youth and end up, temporarily, in a transitional housing for youth shelter.  FYI, one of mine, shortly after reaching the age of majority and having apparently, outlived her fiscal and psychological utility for my “ex” (i.e., reducing significant child support arrears), the family court system (ordering more personnel — a GAL — into the mix, and engendering through poor decision-making, the “left-behind” parent’s [in my case, that was me, the mother] need to keep coming back to court hoping to regain contact with the separated children), which itself then “supports” the rationale to further streamline procedures, reduce legal protections to due process, based on “the courts are overloaded.”

Meanwhile, and I am still talking primarily HHS funding — the “smart ones” who may not necessarily have a strong overlap with the “honest” ones or those with a high personal sense of ethics regarding their own accountability, or understanding of the downside of diverting private nonprofits with private agenda — these “smart ones” (or, politically connected ones) — instead of choosing “just one of the above” can — and my Georgia-based page SHOWS (Excerpts below also validate in part) — are simply positioning themselves, AS ARE STATE AGENCIES, to say, “come through us, government — come to us, clients” and take Abstinence Education, Responsible Fatherhood/Healthy Marriage, AND Family Violence Prevention.

For a reminder (I did post on this in 2016), the “FVPSA” (Family Violence Prevention Services Act) dates back to 1984 and involves primarily the agency HHS.   By contrast, the Violence Against WOMEN Act, was in 1994, and is commonly associated in the public mind, and in general, with the USDOJ’s “Office of Violence Against Women” which exists to implement grants from that Act.  BUT, organizations are free to take from both the USDOJ and the USDHHS, as they are free to take from apparently equal and apparently opposing sides from the staged “gender wars.”

At a certain point, it’s time to call those in the game — at the highest levels, not the lowest levels– at this game, and let our Congressmen and women know that we know what is that game.

In order to do that, I recommend those approaching Congress not show up dumber-than-dirt on who is the HHS, what is “Presidential Reorganization Authority” historically, and a few things about 1996 PRWORA welfare reform as it pertains to HMRF funding as administered through HHS.

So, you might want to bookmark this link and get back to it, and you might want to also mark out some time to read my confrontational and, in general, NOT popular among the domestic violence groups OR protective mothers’ groups* BLOG.

*Why not?  After all, I am indeed a survivor of domestic violence, becoming through those court actions, a “protective mother,” and even though several years down the road, after it became clear that the family court would facilitate a state of ongoing disruption, minus enforceable safety boundaries from the same individual, until suddenly, and temperamentally, switching custody.  Right now, I just discovered leading feminist jumping in to promote the term “Mothers of Lost Children” (and her book) and the same professionals which I have documented, refused to seriously discuss the “HHS / HMRF” factor in between their laments about badly behaving judges, GALs, and custody evaluators.

I learned, over time, that to perpetuate any form of abuse — and economic control is essential to trapping people in abusive relationships, marital or other — the art of, pardon me, bullshitting the bystanders– is an essential part. They need to call it something else — like “Marriage” or “Family.”  There also have to be effective means, utilized at the same time,  of silencing future outcries (dissents), just in case, some bystanders might DO something about the abuse, and cut into the privilege — and profits– involved in exploiting other human beings in the name of some social benefit.

Recommended Reading:  This CRS link, “Presidential Reorganization Authority, History, Recent Initiatives, and Options for Congress” (Henry B. Hogue, Dec. 11, 2012), has a Summary which explains a request to renew this authority was made January 2012 by President Obama, and explains how we got the “Federal Security Agency –>>  Health Education and Welfare ==> Health and Human Services  + (separately) Department of Education.  It also explains the relationship of this particular authority to how forms of it were perpetuated under the Wartime Powers Act (for WWI and WWII) and that, among other things, such agencies as FEMA, the EPA and (as above) HEW were originally formed. This is a fairly neutral report, bipartisan, intended for members of Congress (CRS = Congressional Research Service) of the larger context of one of the largest grant making federal agencies, whose activities I continue report, particularly after learning how badly the policies compromised my personal family line, and kept them in danger, needlessly, for years, based on re-classifying “danger” from existing criminal definitions, to membership in a socially targeted as “dangerous” demographic group, i.e., single-mother=-headed households.


I do not know yet, whether Congress in 2012 did, in fact, reauthorize this “Reorganization Authority” but every thing I can see at the observational level is that a consolidation of federal DEPARTMENTS (HUD, HHS, etc.) programming is taking place under HHS programs targeted to HMRF funding — and the HMRF funding itself, along with funding to “Prevent Family Violence” — is also (at least in Georgia, this page shows) being centralized to go to just a very few organizations, with the former “Statewide Coalitions Against Domestic Violence” (CADV groups), themselves a symptom of centralized control of battered women’s shelters and services to help victims, are getting a small percentage of what the state agencies are getting.

Now, about that New Page, HHS Grantees, Just Georgia, Just HMRF (CFDA 93086), May 13, 2016, Report Run. Take a look!

That approximately 10,000 word PAGE (not post) is meant as an example, and a point of reference to how states are handling both the HMRF funding AND (as it turned out) the DV Funding, and just how centralized it is possible to become over time.  It currently is on top of my list of “Vital Links/Info” on the sidebar.

It is informative, and it does some detailed lookups on the very few grantees at this time, receiving straight CFDA 93086 grants.  As it turns out, some of these are also receiving the bulk of the “Family Violence Prevention/DISCRETIONARY” grants also, and as such have delivered coordinated control of that field over to the same agencies (and there are TWO referenced, which you will see, ONE of which also is handling the Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood grants).

Again, Title of the page:  HHS Grantees, Just Georgia, Just HMRF (CFDA 93086), May 13, 2016, Report Run. Take a look!

BY THE WAY — I could use some help looking up some of these corporations, from people willing to write-up and provide links to their efforts.  

Contact me through a comment if interested, but expect to make a time commitment if you’re serious about asking my time to again, review how to do this.  If this leads to other posts on this blog, that might also be good….

Why bother?

Well, it’s rewarding and enriching personally to SEE what is happening and there IS no better way to learn it than by starting to look at the evidence first-hand, and let that evidence speak to you.  Listening to the narratives of others who have looked it up and are talking about it, qualifies you as a second-hand witness, not an eye-witness.  Listening to others (including reading their accounts) is no real substitute for the real thing to get the “gray matter” working. It will raise some hard questions which, then, by even attempting to answer, will put anyone in a better position to understand more of current events in this country, including probably (especially, if you’re family-court-involved) in your life also.  There are all kinds of corollary benefits to following the money trail where public funds are involved. Understanding increases exponentially.

One of the hard questions that may come up should also include: “Why haven’t others — why haven’t “the experts” we’ve been reading advocating for Family Court Enhancement (or, Fixing), or about making family courts safe for children, or about stopping domestic violence, or about the issues of “parental alienation” either as a reality, or as an “unsound psychological theory” — talking about the same things Let’s Get Honest and just a few others, over many years, are talking about?

Ideally, if pursued, this might awaken one to the reality of how much national public policy is public relations-driven, i.e., the “Freud’s nephew factor” (Edward L. Bernays). This should then lead to a consideration of who controls the technology on which the media is based, which again, ought to lead RIGHT BACK to, “who owns this place, anyhow?” WHO controls it fiscally, WHO controls the operational infrastructure, and who controls most of the assets in the United States of America.

Continue Reading: https://familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/note-to-readers-see-new-page-just-hhs-just-georgia-just-hmrf-grants/

Police reports paint disturbing Minnesota Family Court picture

Communities Digital News

by Michael VolpeMay 7, 2016

Four new police reports paint a troubling picture of a violent and dangerous man that has sole custody of his five children, yet the media says he is wrongfully accused. Why?

rucki-700x350WASHINGTON, May 7, 2016 — Communities Digital News has unearthed four police reports involving David Rucki, whose divorce, custody battle and two daughters’ disappearance was the feature of the April 8 “20/20” episode entitled “Footprints in the Snow.”

Those police reports paint a troubling portrait of David Rucki, who presently has sole custody of his five children with ex-wife Sandra Grazzini-Rucki.

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki accused David Rucki of physical and emotional abuse of her and her children for several years.

The Rucki family came to the attention of the media when the two oldest daughters ran away on April 19, 2013, after their pleas to live with their mother were shut down repeatedly by the court.

They remained missing until November 2015, when U.S. marshals discovered them on a farm in Herman, Minnesota, according to the Star Tribune.

CDN had reported information that backs up Grazzini-Rucki claims of abuse by Rucki.

Rucki has more than 10 criminal arrests and multiple convictions. Four new police reports further substantiate Grazzini-Rucki’s  claims of violence by David Rucki.

Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/news-2/police-reports-paint-disturbing-minnesota-family-court-picture-62949/#qbczOjHyuh0pVkyl.99

%d bloggers like this: