Post by matthewjfalkner on Oct 5, 2013 15:54:42 GMT -7
1) The Oath of Office is a binding contractual arrangement between each officer made elective or appointive of the Constitution or any derived law and the People, who in faith and confidence grant authority derived of them as consideration, conditional upon sworn guarantee that the authority granted will be used to defend the constitution on their behalf.
2) Any breach of said oath constitutes a forfeiture of all consideration given by and through said contract, and therefore all authority granted is null.
3) Any such breach imposes upon all other authorities under the same contract, a duty to defend the Constitution by means of corrective action.
4) Corrective action applied for breach of the Oath of Office does not rise to the level of defending the Constitution unless all reasonable efforts to apply all identifiable remedies, restore all diminished faith and confidence, prevent any reocurrence, remove all improper incentives or motivations, and apply appropriate punitive damages with enhanced culpability relevant to the level of authority, faith and confidence exploited.
5) A sworn guarantee to defend the Constitution constitutes an affirmative duty to recognize any and all need to do so, and to pursue the identification of such need with all dillegence when any reasonable claim is raised that such need exists.
6) A sworn oath is a per se acceptance of accountability and culpability for any breach of that oath, and a waiver of all proximate immunities. It is an impenetrable and overlying limitation on any defined discretion.
7) All rules of ethics and official conduct that do not subvert any Constitutional duty or superior law, define all official capacities, and no act beyond official capacity may be construed as an act of discretion, or appliccable to any immunity.
8) Jurisdictional limitations should not be construed to limit, divert, or forgive any duty to defend the Constitution. The duty to defend is an affirmative duty that cannot be passed by deferral to external jurisdictions without either a joint guarantee of performance between both jurisdictions, or an assignment of power of attorney to the external jurisdiction to act on behalf of the deferred duty to defend.
9) Authority granted to the government by the People is an extension of that authority, and in nowise may be construed as a waiver or deferral of that authority. Common law has well established that a jury has equal and arguably greater power than a judge to issue judicial decisions. Generally, with limited statutory exceptions, and with with acceptance of similar liabilities, individual citizens hold the same power to effect an arrests as police officers. Citizens may by innitiative, change laws without undue interference by government authorities.
10) Family rights have been federally recognized as highly protected. A fit parent determines the best interests on their children unless and until compelling state interest is established to interpret those interests. Due process rising to the level of "strict srcrutiny" must be applied to establish such compelling interest. A termination of parental rights is similar to the issuance of a death penalty.
11) It is a conflict of interest, and a compromise to all interests of family, justice, protections from bias, and assurance of due process for the state to compel itself on it's own interests in any legal proceeding or determination that may oppose the interests of children or familyies.
12) Any government pledge, assertion of priority, or oath guaranteeing family protections is a violation of public trust when not supported by performance, when paterns and practices subvert conflicting interests, when convoluted law is prejudicially applied, and when immunity and discretion are improperly considered or used to divert or exploit the duty to protect.
13) No legal proceeding to determine the interests of children or families is constitutional when such determination is mot made by a jury of peers.
14) It is unconstitutional for the Office of the Guardian ad Litem or any other person to be granted representation of the interests of children or families in any form of oposition or addition to to a fit parent's right to do so.
15) It is unconstitutional for the Office of the Attorney General or any other government authority to have imposed on them, or to accept any duty that presents a conflict of interest prejudicial to the family, or in favor of state interests above them.
16) It is unconstitutional for any government authority to assume any influence or participation in any legal matter involving family rights unless and until the Oath of Office has been duly sworn, and properly filed.
17) Fruit of a poisonous vine has no place in the law, regardless of how deeply it is rooted. Any mistake of authority is historically unbinding, and may not be construed otherwise.
18) The participation of government authorities in legal matters involving children and families is misconduct whenever such efforts that do not rise to the level of "strict scrutiny" to effect dilligent due process, or any of the same is denied, avoided, or otherwise subverted.
19) There is a prerequisite duty in assuming said participation that the government worker be trained and knowledgable in all family rights, to undergo background checks, drug screenings, and to participate in no judicial proceeding without a thorough understanding and proper utilization of rules of evidence. No offer of evidence should ever be given in lieu of best evidence, without proper supporting evidence or documentation, by speculation, without proper discovery, by hearsay, etc.
Other points and remedies,
20) The court and the People should order that all imbalanced funding, selective spending, and inadequate financial oversight cease and desist.
21) Pathology has filtered through all manner of government and related agencies.
22) Judicial decisions violate the public trust.
23) Laws are created and passed that give parens patriae unlimited power not provided by the Constitution
24) The paradigm shift that accompanied a monopoly/monopsony strategy of funding extracted from dwindling Social Security is devastating families across America
25) Children’s lives are at stake and are being killed 6-1 over parents per 100,000
26) That the states are not following guidelines placing with relatives but are screening them out using different criteria with foster families
27) That pockets of tyranny are going unchecked without recourse.
28) Congress is not responsive to The People.
29) The People also have compelling interest as an implied term.
30) The People should declare a public health crisis as a result of these findings.
31) Parens Patriae is a doctrine that imposes a specialized position created by the government for the government, and violates Article 1 Sec 9, 10: No title of nobility or honour shall be granted by the United States. The title extends to the courts, Children's Administration and public education violating Amendment 14 depriving persons of life, liberty and property without due process. The position applies as a collective.
I will follow up with info on oversight committees, and unconstitutional privacy laws/application of those laws.
What we haven't documented well enough is a more precise statistical correllation between inconsistent application of law or policy and the motivations behind them. We need to eliminate all vagueness as to the direct influence perverse incentives given without adequate scrutiny or performance-based conditions give. We need to show witthout room for objection the culturally imbedded patterns and practices serving no legitimate purpose, and in lieu of netter solutions thay have been proposed time amd again produce them. We need to show the historical failure of civil remedies to produce change and prevent recurrence. There's no historical remedy is sufficient.
2) Any breach of said oath constitutes a forfeiture of all consideration given by and through said contract, and therefore all authority granted is null.
3) Any such breach imposes upon all other authorities under the same contract, a duty to defend the Constitution by means of corrective action.
4) Corrective action applied for breach of the Oath of Office does not rise to the level of defending the Constitution unless all reasonable efforts to apply all identifiable remedies, restore all diminished faith and confidence, prevent any reocurrence, remove all improper incentives or motivations, and apply appropriate punitive damages with enhanced culpability relevant to the level of authority, faith and confidence exploited.
5) A sworn guarantee to defend the Constitution constitutes an affirmative duty to recognize any and all need to do so, and to pursue the identification of such need with all dillegence when any reasonable claim is raised that such need exists.
6) A sworn oath is a per se acceptance of accountability and culpability for any breach of that oath, and a waiver of all proximate immunities. It is an impenetrable and overlying limitation on any defined discretion.
7) All rules of ethics and official conduct that do not subvert any Constitutional duty or superior law, define all official capacities, and no act beyond official capacity may be construed as an act of discretion, or appliccable to any immunity.
8) Jurisdictional limitations should not be construed to limit, divert, or forgive any duty to defend the Constitution. The duty to defend is an affirmative duty that cannot be passed by deferral to external jurisdictions without either a joint guarantee of performance between both jurisdictions, or an assignment of power of attorney to the external jurisdiction to act on behalf of the deferred duty to defend.
9) Authority granted to the government by the People is an extension of that authority, and in nowise may be construed as a waiver or deferral of that authority. Common law has well established that a jury has equal and arguably greater power than a judge to issue judicial decisions. Generally, with limited statutory exceptions, and with with acceptance of similar liabilities, individual citizens hold the same power to effect an arrests as police officers. Citizens may by innitiative, change laws without undue interference by government authorities.
10) Family rights have been federally recognized as highly protected. A fit parent determines the best interests on their children unless and until compelling state interest is established to interpret those interests. Due process rising to the level of "strict srcrutiny" must be applied to establish such compelling interest. A termination of parental rights is similar to the issuance of a death penalty.
11) It is a conflict of interest, and a compromise to all interests of family, justice, protections from bias, and assurance of due process for the state to compel itself on it's own interests in any legal proceeding or determination that may oppose the interests of children or familyies.
12) Any government pledge, assertion of priority, or oath guaranteeing family protections is a violation of public trust when not supported by performance, when paterns and practices subvert conflicting interests, when convoluted law is prejudicially applied, and when immunity and discretion are improperly considered or used to divert or exploit the duty to protect.
13) No legal proceeding to determine the interests of children or families is constitutional when such determination is mot made by a jury of peers.
14) It is unconstitutional for the Office of the Guardian ad Litem or any other person to be granted representation of the interests of children or families in any form of oposition or addition to to a fit parent's right to do so.
15) It is unconstitutional for the Office of the Attorney General or any other government authority to have imposed on them, or to accept any duty that presents a conflict of interest prejudicial to the family, or in favor of state interests above them.
16) It is unconstitutional for any government authority to assume any influence or participation in any legal matter involving family rights unless and until the Oath of Office has been duly sworn, and properly filed.
17) Fruit of a poisonous vine has no place in the law, regardless of how deeply it is rooted. Any mistake of authority is historically unbinding, and may not be construed otherwise.
18) The participation of government authorities in legal matters involving children and families is misconduct whenever such efforts that do not rise to the level of "strict scrutiny" to effect dilligent due process, or any of the same is denied, avoided, or otherwise subverted.
19) There is a prerequisite duty in assuming said participation that the government worker be trained and knowledgable in all family rights, to undergo background checks, drug screenings, and to participate in no judicial proceeding without a thorough understanding and proper utilization of rules of evidence. No offer of evidence should ever be given in lieu of best evidence, without proper supporting evidence or documentation, by speculation, without proper discovery, by hearsay, etc.
Other points and remedies,
20) The court and the People should order that all imbalanced funding, selective spending, and inadequate financial oversight cease and desist.
21) Pathology has filtered through all manner of government and related agencies.
22) Judicial decisions violate the public trust.
23) Laws are created and passed that give parens patriae unlimited power not provided by the Constitution
24) The paradigm shift that accompanied a monopoly/monopsony strategy of funding extracted from dwindling Social Security is devastating families across America
25) Children’s lives are at stake and are being killed 6-1 over parents per 100,000
26) That the states are not following guidelines placing with relatives but are screening them out using different criteria with foster families
27) That pockets of tyranny are going unchecked without recourse.
28) Congress is not responsive to The People.
29) The People also have compelling interest as an implied term.
30) The People should declare a public health crisis as a result of these findings.
31) Parens Patriae is a doctrine that imposes a specialized position created by the government for the government, and violates Article 1 Sec 9, 10: No title of nobility or honour shall be granted by the United States. The title extends to the courts, Children's Administration and public education violating Amendment 14 depriving persons of life, liberty and property without due process. The position applies as a collective.
I will follow up with info on oversight committees, and unconstitutional privacy laws/application of those laws.
What we haven't documented well enough is a more precise statistical correllation between inconsistent application of law or policy and the motivations behind them. We need to eliminate all vagueness as to the direct influence perverse incentives given without adequate scrutiny or performance-based conditions give. We need to show witthout room for objection the culturally imbedded patterns and practices serving no legitimate purpose, and in lieu of netter solutions thay have been proposed time amd again produce them. We need to show the historical failure of civil remedies to produce change and prevent recurrence. There's no historical remedy is sufficient.
