????????Why are we churning out Legally Illiterate caseworkers from colleges????????

                                    IT IS ABOUT TIME SOMEBODY DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!

                  I bet any kid, IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS could tell you that Marilyn Monroe did drugs and was a beautiful lesbian who had an adulterous affair with our favorite president. I bet none of those same children, who know about the iniquity of a Moooooovie Star, could tell you JFK wanted to return our Banking system back to the Gold Standard (Lawful Money) and abolish the Federal Reserve Bank ( Legal Tender ) like Ron Paul supporters state he will do if he becomes president.                 


              Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh (Trade Secret).


If you are confronted
with explaining what the "UCC 1-207" <---- Now UCC 1-308
does here is your answer.

When you are going to sign a contract ( drivers license, lease, buying a
automobile, snowmobile, a building permit, marriage license, devoice decree, or any other document).

BEFORE you sign!!! you have the right to draw a fine line through any
thing that is not to your liking. It can be a number, a letter, a word or a
group of words. At this time you can add any thing you want in the contract.
Any changes you have made sign your name close to it and date it. A contract
is to have all of the contract in full disclosure at the time of signing. If
not the UCC 1-207 will stop you from giving up your rights on the contract
you are about to sign and void out any part of the contract that you have
not had the opportunity to view.

Now how the UCC 1-207 works.

After you put UCC 1-207 where your signature is going to be. " your
signature" is the last you thing you put on the document. When you pick up
your pen from the signed contract it is consummated, you have given up your
right to change the contract. Here is some more UCC information. You can go
to a public law library for more information.

case law available if you look it up on the web site:

Without Prejudice
   UCC 1-308    <-Formerly UCC 1-207
Marilyn LeBaron

This is a message from Judge_the_Bench:

Press Release for Julie A Witherspoon,

[Please forward to your private e-mail account if you are at work]

Since Oregon Code on Foster Care and Juvenile Matters are base off what is
on the books in California where this evil is ongoing. We need to take a look
at what needs revision with respect to the OAR & ORS with respect to our
relationship to the State of Oregon, State of Oregon Courts, and their Court
Appointed Attorneys. See Judge Sullivan in Deschutes County for the California
inspired Oregon Charter on what we instated as an example to follow for Family
Matters heard in Juvenile Venue (non Crime & Punishment resulting in the
Equivalent of the Death Penalty to many many families in oregon.

Please send your comments.

Judge_the_Bench Last Updated: Nov 16, 2007 Send Message Instant Message Email to a Friend Unsubscribe Invite to My Blog Gender: Female Status: Single Age: 42 Sign: Pisces City: portland State: Oregon Country: US Signup Date: 02/13/07

Friday, December 14, 2007   Press Release for Julie A Witherspoon, Category: Automotive Press Release for Julie A Witherspoon, Attached is in edit for Roger Weidner on the Barbra Paramenter AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE regarding a Felon Attorney re instated by the Oregon State BAR. For a copy of the Attatchments contact ( e-for-mation@hotmail.com ) For Julie A Witherspoon and her children:     Judge_the_Bench Last Updated: Nov 16, 2007 Post New Blog Customize Email to a Friend   Gender: Female Status: Single Age: 42 Sign: Pisces City: [portland] pursuant to UCC 1-308 State: Oregon Country: US Signup Date: 03/03/07     Wednesday, December 12, 2007     Today we began to write the Federal Injunction for Julie A Witherspoon. Category: Jobs, Work, Careers  All Military, Special Services & Tuckers Site myspace.com/allservicememberssite Date: Dec 11, 2007 7:17 PM Regarding: Correspondence related to:  See: Bottom of Blog. The media will not believe it or cover the story. Now Julie has a (bogus) warrant out for her arrest for not following a pre-emptive court order to turn in her fire arm on false allegation rebutted by her lawyer which was not pressed or reported to the police but 'later' called an eminent thereat, future threat against   a foster parent, the home where Julie's daughter reportedly got raped in. Julie was out of town when the allegation arose she threatened the Foster Mother.  That woman 'told' a Case Worker (days after the incident purportedly took place) then recanted and said, "I can't recall that happened". The BAR Association is attacking and Disbarring one of Julie's former Attorneys for a MOTION to protect her family from 'Hate Crimes' committed against her and her two children. Bureaucrat protection is not child protection but they use the Juvenile Process ( non criminal venue ) to pre convict on criminal offenses when that is a violation of our right to a fair trial,  a pattern and a practice in 'simulating legal process' against the right to the presumption of innocence, "No Complaint, No Victim', because if there is "NO VICTIM, NO COMPLAINT" is possible, a crime has not been committed. (Julie Fears For Her Life) She thought she was going to be killed when they put her in an ICE CHAMBER AT THE ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE after being labeled a Belligerent, because she tried to fire he Child Protective Caseworker with a SUBSTITUTION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY placing her Pen Power as her Children's Voice. When she comes to the  courthouse to file with the Clerk they arrest her for trespassing. Evil, sheer evil, She has tape-recordings so most of it will allow you to be a first hand witness to this corruption and know you would never want to be in any entanglement with our current judiciary. They are sheer evil and "Just say, "Yes, Massa"  is all they think is a citizen response when the CPS knock. Psychology the 'Wild Card'. Subject: RE: Real 'Life' drama, more 'Psychology the 'Wild Card'. Body: ----------------- Original Message ----------------- From: All Military, Special Services & Truckers Site Date: Dec 11, 2007 7:17 PM How are you familiar with this story? How recent did all this take place? Can this story be accessed on the internet for verification? Would you want top post it in a bulletin? ----------------- Original Message ----------------- From: Roger Weidner Date: Dec 11, 2007 8:46 PM Real 'Life' drama, more 'Psychology the 'Wild Card'. Please forward to any news station in Orange County California and to the Governor of California. (You Know Whom).   Please help Julie get this exposed. Those judges need to know 'We the  People' are paying attention'. This could happen to anybody. It happened to me but not as bad. The DA just invented a future crime and took my daughter. The DHS still tried to take my grand baby with that non prosecuted future crime -never committed -  and all the criminal charges I faced was dropped after I fired my Court Appointed Attorney and went right in there -communicating in the written format only- and made my own objections to the DA and told the judge he had a pre set disposition. I did better than the 'lawyer'. This is going on in California. Wickedness sheer wickedness in political circles. Reads like fiction: Torture, lies, kidnapping, generals taking advantage of female subordinates (women who will not put up with bully tactics), Veteran mother raped at the time of Sheriff contact while being searched, a girl molested by the father's circle of friends, (father also a child molester and working for the public school system even if the Court issued a finding that kids were in danger around him,) A boy thrown to the ground by his throat after being seized by his IV in the hospital while protecting his mother. Veteran mother and children seized out of Germany Hospital. Kids put on a plane to America, mother put in the mental hospital at the orders of an evil commander who showed up at the hospital with a blank order and accused Julie of being suicidal when she was ill (her and her children hospitalized for he same sickness). She demanded a hearing and never got one. Her kids flown out of Germany to cause her to come here to fight for custody and win. Then her husband just drops the kids off at the Welfare Office and now they are going to be put up for adoption. (??????) The judge ignored all that. (??????) Julie is not going to kill herself, never was. Her commander just said at the time he and a conspirator took her, "You was drunk the other day and we are taking the kids". Motions to recuse the California  judge are ignored and the Attorney who wrote the MOTION suffers retaliation from the BAR Assosiatoin. This Judge is in the same Masonic Order Julie Witherspoon's ex husband is a member of. Her ex is a 33rd degree Mason.   The media will not believe it or cover the story. Now Julie has a (bogus) warrant out for her arrest for not following a pre-emptive court order to turn in her fire arm on false allegation rebutted by her lawyer which was not pressed or reported to the police but 'later' called an eminent thereat -future threat against a 'foster parent'- the one where Julie's daughter reportedly got raped in. -Julie was out of town  when the allegation arose that she threatened the Foster Mother.-The   foster mother talked with a Case  Worker -days after the incident  purportedly took place- then the  purported complaint was recanted and  the foster mother said, "I can't  recall that happened".  The BAR  Association is attacking and Disbarring one of Julie's Attorneys  for a MOTION to protect her family from 'Hate Crimes' committed against her and her two children. When she comes to the courthouse  to file with the Clerk they arrest her  for trespassing. Evil, sheer evil.  She has tape-recordings so most of it will allow you to be a first hand witness to this corruption and know you would never want to be in any  entanglement with our current judiciary. They are sheer evil and "Just say, "Yes, Massa" is  all they think is a citizen  response when the CPS  knock. Psychology the 'Wild Card'. Oh, btw My name is Marilyn LeBaron. I am the Author of the above Political Complaint on behalf Julie A Witherspoon and believe this ADMINISTRATION needs a severe immediate reprimand. This arrogant reply from/on behalf Thomas Fiorello is in violation of our right to have a neutral judiciary. Message ID: 17032982 Date Sent: 12/11/2007 7:17:00 PM Body: How are you familiar with this story? How recent did all this take place? Can this story be accessed on the internet for verification? Would you want top post it in a bulletin? ----------------- Original Message ----------------- From: Roger Weidner 8:14 AM - 2 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment -    Judge_the_Bench Last Updated: Nov 16, 2007   A link to the Blog you selected has been sent to the following addresses: blawglawg@yahoo.com e-for-mation@hotmail.com juliebrinko@yahoo.com madatcps@aol.com Posted by AuntyBLAWGwar on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at 8:28 AM [Reply to this] For a copy of the Attatchments contact ( e-for-mation@hotmail.com ) 10:37 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Imported from external blog

To:  Ron Paul 2008 campain

We thank you The Honorable Congressman Ron Paul for your wisdom voting against the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. As Parents we are concerned about the corruption and usurping of constitutional rights in the name of the children. State CPS agencies are legally kidnapping childen for federal dollars. Parents who had there kids taken with no evidence to support the allegations. When they appear in Family/Juvenile Courts. The accused are deprived of a trial by jury. Also Deprived of the Fifth Amendment rights not answer questions they can use against them. There is no due process and rights to any fair trial under the color of law. Children have no rights under the writ of Habeas Corpus being held in Foster care with no evidence of a crime. We ask you as a contender for the President of the United States of America. If Elected you will do everything in power under the US Constitution has delegated to the executive branch. You will cut of the money encouraging this unconstitutional practice of the States CPS agencies of taking children from loving parents. We understand the Family unit is the back bone of our society and the strength of our nation. CPS through this Federal Money under CAPTA(Child Abuse Protection Treatment Act of 1974), The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 and the social security act has corrupted our local police,local government and politicians because of the money they get per child. We have petitioned our governors,our state legislators and our county government about this rogue operation taking kids with no due process. To no avail the abuse in foster homes, the lawlessness of the CPS workers,the judges and the police violating our civil rights fell on deaf ears and have failed the people they are supposed to represent. We ask you do everything in your power to put an end the CPS as we know and keep government out of the family. We acknowledge real Child Abuse,Neglect and Abandonment is a criminal act that should be dealt with in criminal court under State laws. And the Child should be removed for the child's safety and put with close kin and a foster home as a last resort. We ask you again to stop the funding and return it as a local/State issue and no longer subsidised by the Federal Government.

Sincerely,
 

The Undersigned 

HERE IS ANOTHER REASON: RULE 53 REFROM

                    http://journals.aol.com/reformcps/RULE-53-REFORM-BLAWG-LAW-OAR-ORS/

Social Service Specialist

Rockwood CW

CPS Unit

Munltinomah County, District 2

    Since ‘We the People’, have the right to equal protection of the laws, I insist that an assessment is the equivalent to and investigation due to the nature of CPS ‘representation’ being prosecutory and in violation of the Separation of Powers, at noncriminal Administrative rule, whereas the Oregon State Bar has denied that Max R. Wall is subject to a PRC violation, in the instance when he Attested the DHS Fully Advised Melanie LeBaron.  Thereto, the Office of Noncriminal Prosecutor is one step off that which defines Representation, as when compared to the role of the Criminal Prosecutor, who directly representing the victim, as well as the voice of the people, which left Melanie LeBaron without Counsel subject to the full protection of Max R. Wall’s license agreement. Whereas the State of Oregon’s Agency claimed to have been assailed because of a dead bolt and a call to the State Police, when a call was logged to complain about Chandra Snyder circumventing the OAR, which is equivalent of overturning a judge if he said there is no case and the DA went to trial anyway, getting another judge to see where his Probable Cause had aim, and the other judge missed the mark, without any new and relevant information, considering the compounded violation of he right to a Speedy Trial & the No Teeth Factor. But, Max R. Wall is not handed to prosecute the voice of the State of Oregon, unless it is the victim and can be named the damaged party, like in the case assigned to Mark Allen Heslinga, where Max R. Wall had no jurisdiction over the criminal allegation. He is left to represent the voice of the DHS, which represents the will of the DMV, and what DHS give as Legal Advise to a teen in the form of a prognosis, so he just misses the responsibility of naming a victim the obligation to give Proper Counsel, while gaining from the lack thereof. Which is convoluted since Judge Horner did appoint Melanie a law firm, at first. But, I wonder why DHS is not held to accountability to Fully Advise their clients regarding all the aspects of the Supreme Law of the Land pertaining to a second set of double CONTINUANCED, when getting a Child’s nod to allow it. But, Fully Advisement on the Premise is insufficient as to omit Full Advisement of how the disregard to the right to a Speedy Trial, would adversely affect her the rest of her life, considering, Max R. Wall intended to prophesy her mother would hurt the unborn at the upcoming Trial. As directly thereto, Melanie’s voice was not represented, or preserved or even sought, neither her right to establish a home with the parent of her choice. So I wonder, were the pharmaceutical companies profit margins are or the overly protected CPS Caseworker, which not the voice of grass roots ambition, are identified as the voice of the people, in the Office of the DA, Max R. Wall’s action for suit in this case? If so, how was that also representing the ‘a Child’s needs, if not the grass root right, as Melanie herself would have to declare she believed her mother might assail a bureaucrat, where there was no contact between them, and be invited to meetings with Supervisory Staff and her CPS Advocate, which was not the case. Where is it documented that Melanie was invited to and extra clinical diagnosis session? And were in any case studies has the clinician treated one patient to resolve the propensity for criminal activity in another subject not in his care, while never examining the diagnosed? It is illegal to prosecute and represent, too, especially the accused when your action is directed at somebody else. Moreover, where DHS/CPS Agents are not members of the Oregon State Bar or Medical Doctors not having privilege in either capacity, do give Medical Advise while failing give the proper Legal Advise, when not qualified in either capacity to report Melanie to have been Fully Advised on the Premise, to which Max R. Wall attested. Since Melanie was not his Client, congruent, to the standard practice not to represent the Client of another law firm to say, by second hand, Full Advise was given, making the DHS Agency his Client, and the damaged party, and Melanie their damaged property, intended for the prosecutory action, since DHS is licensed to Advise anybody, especially when there was a conflict of interest between the CPS and the child, as well as with the mother, who had no Privilege, both being under duress. Thereto, Melanie had no Privilege with them either, they never asked. Max R. Wall was not Melanie’s Defender in the case were there was a conflict of interest between Melanie and Chandra Snyder, at the beginning, which is centered around the right to freedom of religion. And by such, like as in this case, Chandra Snyder, DHS Supervisory Staff, did so perform judicial duties, and also act in the capacity of prosecutor by signing the Petition she presented to Polk County Circuit Court after she had circumvented the Probable Cause stage of the American Due Process rights and assigned the case after it had already been closed a screening. When later, in half of Max R. Wall’s duties, did overturn the assigned caseworkers intention to allow visitation and prevented visitation on behalf of her own malicious allegation, that there was a physical confrontation initiated against her in court by Marilyn LeBaron, when in fact it was initiated by herself when she seized the signature pages of the AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS, which is perjury and prejudice. It should not remain unheard that the judge is bias to take the side of a bureaucrat, without inquiry, after Max R. Wall had gained a unfair advantage, prior, seeking a second set of double CONTINUANCES over the matter considering court had not been called to order, and people were still sitting down. What happened is in no way evidence someone would be attacked, especially the protected expectant mother, who with DHS diagnosis her protection sought through improper channels. Max R. Wall’s slanderous intentions are misapplied a bureaucratic protection suit, and not relevant to the Mother in absence of a history of violence on the intended felons part, which was over the same caseworker Chandra Snyder had personally assigned to the case to prior, which impeaches her, beforehand, considering the history of the Exhibits and when they got ‘mailed funny’ and when the began to get ‘mailed even funnier’.  In conclusion, Marry Anne E. Miller was Max R. Wall’s Client in Fact, but the Oath of Affirmation would fall under Mark Allen Heslinga’s call, if he would dare retain a Client before the actual damaged party presented her self seeking justice. Melanie LeBaron was not represented on any count with respect to either the MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE or the MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC TESTIMONEY since she could not have been damaged by the Premise because the timeline of Exhibits would not be congruent to contact by and between her mother for CPS to present an assessment of the same. Marilyn LeBaron was not represented, as she had no physical contact with CPS or DHS Supervisory Staff which could be considered a clinical evaluation pursuant to any Exhibit purported as support of said MOTIONS.

Partial Cross Consolidation & Rule 53 'ursuant in' POWER & PREJUDICE:

To become 'subject' and 'made liable' to Article I Legislated and Article II Executor/Admiralty is as easy as signing your children into pre-school. Enrollment office will show our proud flag, Admiralty. The signing of the corporate birth certificate, the Child's assignment of SS#, is where the birthright switch is made from "entitled" Rights to 'subject' civil Liberties. Under the Common Law a parent may contract a Child's name to an instrument, seeking faith and fairness, but agency has not the power. This activity does not take much practice because we sign contracts all the time. The W-4 instrument was by far the best Dragon lobe I ever pinched, because it was the most obvious and worrisome 'devise.' .......

We collect the 'engraft' sow's ear by agency fiat of 'unconscionable' contract, license, and enrollments. The signing at UCC 3-104.1, which if "unconditional" at UCC 3-104.2 gives agency police power to access your property by executing negotiable "dishonored" instruments of "promise" per UCC 3-104.3. This power does not extent to the shopping mall, because not all Citizens are contracted in the same permissive manner and street citizens wiggle more than contracted children with parental consent to use "public policy, " as protective 'devise.'

No Citizen may sign an 'unconditional promise' without waiving Rights and becoming in personam to actions of non criminal issue. 'Without prejudice' UCC 1-207 turns the sow's ear instrument into a silk purse for the state Citizen, because all Rights are reserved and in personam is restored to personam. A resident alien gets the sow's ear whether he wants it or not. He must assent to his master, as we must Obey God. God's silk purse has the Choice. We must give credit to 'civil' Law of man at Article I and use our 'reserved' rights to God's Judicial law of Article III and Separation of Powers to complete our work via Acts 22:25 and avoid Article II altogether......

Marilyn LeBaron

dogettydonggonedo <-- non accused mock tried at non criminal lawlessness’s

Marilyn LeBaron

                                       Questionnaire

Attention: Preachers, Public Officials, 'Rulers', 'Captains', 'Armies' & 'Kings'! You are clay pots!!!! But, still in charge... 
                       You are on God's 'hit list'!  

                      PLEASE BE FULLY ADVISED!
               HIS ROD OF IRON IS THE SON OF MAN
Help!!!!! sos sos sos sos sos sos sos sos sos sos sos sos sos

   Citizens! My fellow Blogrings and Activists....Introducing.... 
                                    
                                      The 

    Blind Faith in Bureaucracy test [or not] Questionnaire
                                 F:..Confirmation of Judicial Opinion.doc 
                                                                          
   We are waiting to see the ski filled with angelic host.... 
God said, "Men will confuse right for wrong". We can help warn the flock by enlightening them in Legal Literacy, and turn to Him with all our hearts... I rejoice to know God's word will not return to Him void. Please remember He said, "My people perish for lack of knowledge"!!!
         He meant it. That verse is 'law', because   

                                           He spoke! 

      These are the documents, e-mail and everything. I filed on the court and pasted right into the comment space for petitions against CPS abuses... These are things I have been sending to the media for over a year now!!!!!!! Do you hear about it in the news??? Ever!

      I would not know I don't watch much TV!!! I put all these documents here so you can get the facts while you answer the questions in the Questionnaire bellow...

There are numerouse documants to read!

From: "Scott Morrill"  To: Subject: DHS Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:28:03 -0800

Dear Mr. LeBaron:     

                          ............   hint hint hint hint hint hint hint hin  ..............

      Your e-mail was referred to me for a response. The bar does not have jurisdiction over DHS agents and it appears that you could use some legal advice. The bar cannot give legal advice to members of the public. However, if you are between the age of 11 and 17 you may be able to get some free legal advice from a volunteer lawyer. 

                                                 ..........hint hint hint hint .........hint hint hint hint....

http://www.petitiononline.com/families/petition.html

                          ..........hint hint hint .......... hint hint hint.......

      Dear Public officials, political leaders, and news media personnel, PLEASE PUBLISH ---  AMERICA: My daughter was placed in a lock down facility for a petty offense and that punishment was not directed at her disciplinary needs. That punishment was directed at me. Please look and see if punishment fits the 'non crime' as my daughter, my son, or I had not committed a crime.

   {Though I was accused of ‘two’, unrelated to the reason the DHS knocked on my door.}
             {Both dismissed)}. 

      My family’s punishment began right when a case was closed as a long wait for a trial began, but when that trial commenced it was not the final battle. The DHS did not present a case, or come to be cross examined 

Help!!!!! sos sos sos sos sos sos sos sos sos sos sos sos sos sos sos sos sos sos sos{A closed case was ordered reopened; to have a new case brought against me by a judge who knew the case was not a 'FOUNDED' case.} sos sos sos sos sos sossos sos sos sos sos sos sos sossos sos sos sos sos sos sos sos 

      That judge sat and waited and allowed another case be brought against me while the other matter stood at a stand still. He does not 'recognize' his mistake. Will you? If you answer no to all most all of these questions please write to Judge Horner and tell him so, at horner-william@hotmail.com.

you answers to these questions wil reveal your sense of freedome, Are you Fully Advised as to your Inalienable Rights? Some of the questions should absolutely be answered. "Yes". Can you find which ones?

    Blind Faith in Bureaucracy test [or not]
                         Questionnaire
                 F:..Confirmation of Judicial Opinion.doc #2  
                                       
1.       DHS 'adjudication', [disposition of a completed assessment], is equivalent to a 'court order'.

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

2.       DHS can try you on the spot and that is seen as reasonable efforts, on their part, if you do not do what they say.

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

3.       DHS can cite a judge on an unproved matter to build another case against a parent.

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

4.       DHS will wait to bring you to trial, with the case they choose to cite, though never proved.

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

5.       DHS 'findings', from an assessment are final, and a trial after DHS reports have already taken effect, is not DOUBLE JEOPARDY.

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

6.       DHS do not have the obligation of PRESENTMENT, for something never proved.

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

7.       DHS can build another case against you even if they never proved the previous matter.

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

8.       DHS can gain a continuance (x2), prior to another continuance (x2), while they determine what their diagnosis is.

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

9.       DHS can cite a judge, build another case thereto, before the cited case is proved or investigated.

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

10.    A judge can keep you from visiting your children while a case is closed, on the case DHS choose to cite.

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

11.    DHS does not have to PRESENT a case prior to taking your other child, while a judge waits to hear from them.

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

12.    DHS can try you on the spot at the Juvenile Department, without a proper 'SUMMON'.

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

13.    DHS can 'appear' in person, anywhere, any time, not tell you they are coming, and their presence is equivalent to a trial.

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

14.    DHS can try a case, by assessment, and then advise the judiciary of their 'findings'.

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

15.    DHS findings are final, though the burden of proof is not met beyond a reasonable doubt.

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

16.    DHS can take your children basing their 'findings' on statistics alone, till they take you to court for something never proved, not having been subject to proper PRESENTMENT when required.

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

17.    The court can ignore Pro-se attempts to gain discovery, {PRESENTMENT}, because a citizen is not familiar with the legal process.

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

18.    The court can ignore Pro-se inadvertence, grounds for an order to dismiss, defined in RULE 71, and give you a 'broken arm'.  See: Judge Luukinen, who does not speak English ‘in’ the courtroom.

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

19.    There is no acquittal for noncriminal matters.

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

20.    There is no plea available in noncriminal matters.

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

21.    There is no plea bargain available in noncriminal matters, when a person is said to be suffering of poor mental health, and no protection of Substantive Due Process, because no crime has been committed.

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

22.    The opposing party does not have to cause the DHS to come to court in a noncriminal matter. See: # 25

                                a.       Yes ____ No ___.

23.    The DHS, the 'voice' of the 'WHOLE VILLAGE' is not subject to cross examination.

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

24.    Police men do not have to come to court for cross examination of the facts when a police report is presented to a judge.

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

25.    If you lose your turn, by 'ORDER' of the court, not allowed to place further evidence into record, you are responsible to cause the DHS to speak on your behalf, though they are the opposing parties advocate. See: # 22

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

26.    The court does not have to appoint you Counsel, until after accepting DHS reports, taken before you are advised.

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

27.    DHS does not have to Fully Advise you of the nature of their questioning process though their ‘findings’ bear the weight of an ‘adjudication’. 

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

28.    The 'voice' of the 'WHOLE VILLAGE', ‘DHS case working staff’, is not the equivalent of the voice of ‘We the People’ of the United States of America, the duties represented as THE BEST INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, the ‘voice’ of the DA.  

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

29.    The ORS Advocacy, DHS case worker is not required to have a law degree.  

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

30.    The DHS do not answer to the Oregon State Bar, or subject to be investigated by the Municipal Police.  

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

31.    If you disagree with DHS staff you have to talk to DHS supervisory staff and use their forms.  

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

32.    If you do not use DHS forms to resolve a dispute you do not get to submit a grievance.  

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

33.    DHS does not have to tell you what the grievance process is or give you Advise on how to complain about their conduct or mistakes.  

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

34.    DHS is not responsible to respond to an 'ORDER' of the court, who waited to hear from them, which falls to the responsibility of the petitioning party.  

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

35.    DHS can, after a case is closed, with no further contact with a subject, change the disposition to 'FOUNDED'.  

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

36.    DHS can interfere with visitation, on a closed case, by threatening to remove a child from the parent who has physical custody, against a child's right to maintain a bond with the other parent.  

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

37.    A judge can interfere with visitation on a closed case, against the right to a speedy trial, while the DHS wait for grounds to open a closed case, while advancing their assessment 'findings' of UNABLE TO DETERMINE.  

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

38.    DHS can act as though they proved a case on insufficient evidence, [no reasonable cause to believe neglect or abuse has occurred], and 'found', at a later date, the disposition UNABLE TO DETERMINE as a 'FOUNDED' case with no doctor reports.  

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

39.    Statistics will replace a sound police investigation and doctor reports until a set of double continuances provide time for DHS diagnosis.

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

40.    DHS can interfere with visitation for matters they do not investigate before or after they assess your parenting.  

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

41.    The burden of proof is not on the DHS by a direct examination of doctor reports they never ordered to see.  

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

42.    DHS can at any time, regarding the report of medical neglect, order a release of information into doctor patient privilege and ignore the initial allegation.  

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

43.    DHS can forward their clinical diagnosis, without direct examination of an intended client, in lieu of a release thereto, when that person does not want to be their client, SAY they represent the child, BEST INTERESTS, and the parent, too.

a.        Yes ___ No ___.

44.    DHS can represent child and parent, by way of parents Social Security Number, as their intended clients, ← though they have no license to practice law, as Counsel of Choice, and have no Professional Rules of Conduct which includes privilege.  

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

45.    Though a law firm cannot, when there is a conflict of interest, represent both parent and the intended complainant, the DHS case worker can, complainant being the child, requiring the complainee, the parent, cooperate and allow access to all their private information and witnesses, though the DHS is the opposing party.  

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

46.    The DHS does not have to press a criminal allegation in order to subject you to 'ADMINISTRATIVE' LAW and there is no plea available or acquittal, because 'ADMINISTRATIVE LAW' is not the criminal justice system subject to definitions thereto.  

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

47.    DHS can press obstruction charges where there is no plea, where the rules of evidence do not apply, if you do not sign a release of information, when you have no lawyer to guard against prejudice.  

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

48.    DHS can punish you with criminal prosecution by way of obstruction charges if you do not participate with 'ADMINISTRATION' over a noncrime, and you have no lawyer, and they do not tell you why they are threatening to kick in your door.

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

49.    It is reasonable for the DHS to say, “The case is closed we are not answering your letters”, but “We intend to take you to court someday and prevent you from visiting your children in the meantime”.   

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

50.    It is reasonable for the DHS to allege possible inferences towards child abuse or neglect not provide you a lawyer while assessing, and decide relevancy issues over something they stated has no reasonable cause to believe child abuse or neglect occurred.  

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

51.    It is reasonable for a judge to deny PRESENTMENT prior to a trial, then order PRESENTMENT continuing a proceeding, after inferences toward child abuse or neglect resulted in a closed case.  

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

52.    It is just that the DHS make decisions, that affect you longer that any felonious act would, and you have to provide your own lawyer, at your own expense, if you disagree with their opinion.  

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

53.    DHS should represent your doctor, your child, you, though that is a conflict of interest, and a judge should not provide you a lawyer when his 'ORDER' is DHS come to his court room.  

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

54.    DHS can represent both parent and child, even when there is not enough evidence to substantiate an allegation

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

55.    Complaining about DHS staff is to be seen as obsessive and compulsive disorder and you should be brought to court in chains if the judge does not agree to allow a MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC TESTIMONY.  

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

56.    The DHS should only respond to half a report, then say, "UNABLE TO DETERMINE", though there is no evidence the caller, (who logged the report), was concerned enough to step in at any specific date, while saying 'the long-drawn-out emergency’, they never personally attended to, is ongoing, RIGHT NOW, and wishes to remain anonymous. 

a.       Yes ___ No ___. See: # 61, & #65

57.    The DHS should act against your parental rights, after they decided not to, close the case, because of the lack of evidence, and the January 10, 2005 caller was not believed by the DHS.

a.       Yes ___ No ___. See: # 61, & #60

58.    The contradictions in logic should outweigh the lack of proof and DHS should act as though you are committing a felony, since my sentence has been extended for now almost a year, because I said, “Get a SEARCH WARRANT from a real judge, and maintain the right to privacy, not wanting to include DHS in my privileged relationships.

a.       Yes ___ No ___.See: # 56, & #59 & #60

59.    A caller should remain anonymous, though purporting to have intimate knowledge regarding your state of mind, and the severity of abuse they purport, saying the younger of the children is in a state of emergency, and the older is on drugs.   

a.       Yes ___ No ___.See: # 56, & #60

60.    A material witness should remain anonymous and the judge should appoint public officials, probation officers, and CASA, as witnesses in lieu of first hand attestation, in open court, form a caller who claims to be an inside witness.

a.       Yes ____ No ___.See: # 56, & #59

61.    DHS should require all parents, who of sound mind, to submit their medical evaluations and decisions, subject to a detailed release thereto, to a State Case Worker, as law, so the DHS do not have to pick and choose (selecting who) they require to submit to an evaluation.    {Equal Protection of the Law}

a.       Yes ___ No ___.See: # 60, & #63

62.    DHS should know immediately when a parent begins seeing a psychiatrist, be allowed to declare an emergency, if they need assistance in determining what you psychiatrist has to say regarding your medical choices, while under his care.  

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

63.    DHS provides a Social Service, not to be confused as Social Duress, if they do not allow you to make your own medical choices, once you begin psychiatric treatments.

a.       Yes ___ No ___.See: # 61, & #60

64.    A Child Abuse Hotline Screener should be switched, after another closed the case at screening, when DHS supervisory staff calls to provide "NEW INFORMATION", and not presenting that information to you first, as law stipulates they should do.  

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

65.    If the caller at the time of the report, stipulated directly that they had direct knowledge regarding an ‘ongoing’ matter, and do not reported ongoing involvement, like; calling an ambulance, baby sitting, meal preparation, as including in their report: what assistance was given to the child, the report should be believed as if it were true, though DHS took no action for almost a month.  

a.       Yes ___ No ___.See: # 56, & #61

66.    The DHS should close a case just as they claim and emergency is ongoing, though they did not document that they recognized it before, during the assessment, and annotate after the fact.

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

67.    I should not be troubled by the tangible effect of this type of action happening to the rest of the people of this nation, if a third trial were held.  

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

68.    It is always proper to try a DHS case, under an 'ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE', and then have a jury determine if a judge made the right choice while they re-try the case after a parent refuses to do what the DHS say.  

a.       Yes ___ No ___.

69.    DHS 'findings' is not to be seen by Americans as Pre-Adjudication, though judges follow their recommendations.  

a.       Yes ___ No ___.See: # 1, to #17

70.    The morals of the Declaration of Independence allow for a judge to have advisors who do not come to court for cross examination, where there is no jury, on matters that affect you the rest of your life.  

a.       Yes ___ No ___.See: # 1, to #17

71.    An eighteen year old should not be given the right not to contract with an agency by a judicial 'ORDER'.

a.       Yes ____ No ___.

72.    An eleven year old who says, "Yes, but, nothing that worries me", and nothing further to the question, "Does your mother do anything weird?",  have words that should be construed as a complaint even after he says, "No", to the question, "Do you want to go live with your dad?".

a.       Yes ____ No ___. 

If you know what questions to say yes to, please send me a letter.  All these questions are based on the actual events and are a sign of lawlessness.  My government should not be both above, while acting below, the law.  

Judge the Bench,  /s/ Marilyn LeBaron

11/14/06 Fecha de creación 11/15/2006 7:01 PM Fecha de impresión 11/15/2006 7:00 PM A:..DHS DIAGNOSIS.doc  Posted by Marilyn on Thursday, February 08, 2007 at 7:31 PM

Marilyn leBaron (jesushealedmetoo@hotmail.com) Reply-To: e-for-melanie@hotmail.comTo: judgeofpolkaveray@hotmail.com (judgeofpolkaveray@hotmail.com)  Cc: sstevens@osbar.org 
      
      Please for your own knowledge, even if you have no authority to persecute perjurers, find out who advised my daughter to allow a second continuance against her mother's right to a speedy trial, just two day's before her mother's forty-first birthday. -- If Max R. Wall gave my daughter legal advise that is nasty. If the DHS gave my daughter legal advise that should be subject to whatever penalties are available for breaking the rule, "We cannot give you legal advise".  The Oregon State Bar does not give legal advise to people and they are licensed. How is it the DHS get to and they are not? That has to come back on Max R. Wall, and he should not be representing my daughter when he is in competition with his Oath of Office. If you have any information please give it to the following recipients. 

william.zimmer@casperstartribune.net, national@nytimes.com, washington@nytimes.com, as well as: "Juvenile Department Polk County" <juvi-rep-noncrime@hotmail.com>; sstevens@osbar.org, horner-william@hotmail.com,  jesushealedmetoo@hotmail.com,  askdoj@usdoj.gov, casemaker@osbar.org.  

    Maybe one of you could check with my former defender. He should not be able to tell directly, in representation of my daughter, who was his client, at first, (ask judge Horner for how long), but Doug Berg may have some idea about what is proper legal counsel for person who has so much to consider, since the outcome affects the child just as much as the parent.  Marilyn LeBaron Posted by Marilyn on Thursday, February 08, 2007 at 7:37 PM to this]