Think US health authorities have never conducted outrageous medical experiments on us?
Ha think again, I just read this article and it's pretty sick what has happened through the years in the name of research...
Find out more here..
Vaccines and Medical Experiments on Children, Minorities, Woman and Inmates (1845 - 2007)
Showing posts with label predator. Show all posts
Showing posts with label predator. Show all posts
Friday, December 14, 2007
Saturday, November 17, 2007
A letter to the Editor
Lawrence Journal World and News
Lawrence, Kansas
Mental illness
November 16, 2007
To the editor:
Gun control is the wrong target to stop atrocities like the Virginia Tech shootings. It is time to look at the true cause of the killings: antidepressants. In the Virginia tech shooting, Columbine and seven other shootings, psychiatric drugs were the common factor.
The Food and Drug Administration has already stated that antidepressants cause suicidal behavior, mania, psychosis, hallucinations and hostility. The black warning labels on these drugs were put there for a reason, and these drugs are given to people without proper cause and too freely.
Now, President Bush’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health wants to screen all schoolchildren for mental illness. The law has been passed in some states, and the program is called TeenScreen. Normal kids are labeled mentally ill with an array of disorders such as mathematics disorder, reading disorder, conduct disorder, just to name a few. This is ludicrous, and parents need to be aware of what is happening so they don’t let their children fall into a statistic.
Despite the evidence linking psychiatric drugs to suicide and violence, these drugs are prescribed to millions of children and teens based on subjective diagnoses made without any physical tests, such as blood tests, brain scans or X-rays.
It is time to take a stand and quit drugging our children. Let them have a life, not be turned into zombies because someone doesn’t want to “put up with them.”
Melanie Wertin,
Lecompton
Letter to the editor here: http://www2.ljworld.com/submit/letter_to_the_editor/
Lawrence, Kansas
Mental illness
November 16, 2007
To the editor:
Gun control is the wrong target to stop atrocities like the Virginia Tech shootings. It is time to look at the true cause of the killings: antidepressants. In the Virginia tech shooting, Columbine and seven other shootings, psychiatric drugs were the common factor.
The Food and Drug Administration has already stated that antidepressants cause suicidal behavior, mania, psychosis, hallucinations and hostility. The black warning labels on these drugs were put there for a reason, and these drugs are given to people without proper cause and too freely.
Now, President Bush’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health wants to screen all schoolchildren for mental illness. The law has been passed in some states, and the program is called TeenScreen. Normal kids are labeled mentally ill with an array of disorders such as mathematics disorder, reading disorder, conduct disorder, just to name a few. This is ludicrous, and parents need to be aware of what is happening so they don’t let their children fall into a statistic.
Despite the evidence linking psychiatric drugs to suicide and violence, these drugs are prescribed to millions of children and teens based on subjective diagnoses made without any physical tests, such as blood tests, brain scans or X-rays.
It is time to take a stand and quit drugging our children. Let them have a life, not be turned into zombies because someone doesn’t want to “put up with them.”
Melanie Wertin,
Lecompton
Letter to the editor here: http://www2.ljworld.com/submit/letter_to_the_editor/
Friday, November 16, 2007
High on life: the biggest health care fraud in history?
As a new study suggests treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder with drugs can do more harm than good, one lifelong 'sufferer' questions whether the condition even exists.
It was probably nailing my teacher’s coat to the desk while he was still wearing it that did it. That and glueing his packet of peanuts to the classroom ceiling, at a precisely-calculated five millimetres beyond his furthest reach.
It was the climax of what I – and most of my pre-teen classmates – considered a sustained comedy campaign, a bit of light-hearted high-jinx designed to redress the teacher-student balance of power. It wasn’t my first and nor would it be my last, even though this particular incident triggered a catastrophic sense of humour failure in said faculty member, who mysteriously vanished overnight.
Had I been born a decade or so later, I doubt I’d be writing this today. Rather than spending almost 20 years inventing new ways to terrorise a succession of teachers, lecturers and employers – fuelling other forms of creativity, including writing, in the process – I’d have been given a massive dose of Ritalin and left in a corner to rot.
Ancient roots
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), described by Hippocrates as early as 493BC, is billed by the modern medical fraternity as a neurological disorder usually characterised – especially in children – by inattentiveness, restlessness, forgetfulness and hyperactivity. Genetic in nature, it affects around five per cent of the world’s population and is often treated with a combination of medications, behaviour modification, lifestyle changes and counselling.
In 1999, a study in the US concluded that, after a period of 12 months, medication was more effective in the treatment of ADHD than behavioural therapy. In the years since, prescriptions in the UK have tripled. Around 500,000 children in Britain are currently believed to have ADHD. Of those, 55,000 are on medication, at an annual cost to the NHS of roughly £28m.
Recent revelation
But new research – by the authors of the original study – suggests drugs don’t work in the long-term and, alarmingly, their impact may actually be negative. Take 14-year-old Craig Buxton, whose family kept a video diary of his behaviour. The footage, which was screened on Panorama, shows in shocking detail his night terrors, explosive tantrums and relentless acts of aggression. At one point, Craig breaks down and cries: “Why am I like this, mum? I don’t want to feel like this, I don’t want to be like this. Help me.” He has been taking ADHD medication for a decade.
Critics are now questioning whether this so-called chronic developmental disorder is really a disorder at all. Dr Fred Baughman, a child neurologist on the other side of the Atlantic, has spent his professional life examining hundreds of children supposedly suffering from ADHD – and has found nothing abnormal or diseased about them. Nor has he found any hard evidence to suggest ADHD is actually a disease, or that it needs any treatment other than willpower, love and support. As he puts it, “it is the biggest health care fraud in history.”
An expert opines
Speaking to MSN UK News, Dr Baughman said: “I have discovered and described real diseases and, having examined hundreds said to have this ‘disorder’ or ‘disease’, I have Fred Baughman found nothing wrong, abnormal or diseased about them. I have also found no proof in the medical scientific literature of the world that ADHD is an objective, demonstrable abnormality, disease or disorder. It is the biggest health care fraud in history.
“The bigger-than-ADHD picture is that they – psychiatry in collusion with Big Pharma – have pledged to call all emotional and behavioural, psychological or mental symptoms ‘diseases’ due to chemical imbalances of the brain, needing not willpower, not love, support or adaptability, but ‘chemical balancers’ – in other words, pills.”
Cash cow
A conspiracy theory? Perhaps. But when drug-making leviathans in the US (the pursuit-of-superficial-perfection capital of the world) have dedicated ADHD sales forces, you can’t help but wonder who’s really creating the demand. One thing is beyond question: there is an awful lot of money to be made selling drugs – and not just the illegal ones. In the current climate of offspring-as-accessories, any quick-fix for children perceived as less than perfect is unlikely to gather any dust on the shelves.
There are, of course, some children who genuinely need pharmaceutical intervention. However, more often than not, this so-called disorder is really the result of combining excessively spirited children with criminally sub-standard parenting skills – quite the Molotov cocktail. In cases where a child becomes disruptive due to lack of parental care, affection or stimulation, the impairment belongs not to the child, but to the surrounding adults.
Simply semantics
Let’s take another look at those symptoms listed earlier: inattentiveness, restlessness, forgetfulness and hyperactivity. In non-medical speak: fidgeting, forgetting things, talking excessively, running around a lot and being easily distracted. What child isn’t? The problem here is one of perspective. I was thrilled to be alive and found my teachers’ monotonous tones, disinterest in their subject and failure to challenge me a total turn-off. They, in turn, found me disruptive (which I was: it helped relieve the brain-putrefying boredom).
But the real concern isn’t the noisy kids vaulting over furniture and terrorising their teachers (within reason), it’s the quiet children who are completely incapable of engaging with the people around them: the silent insular ones, who go unnoticed by society until they massacre their school mates.
If I ever have children (which I won’t), and they turn out to be unusually spirited (which they would), I like to think I’d turn not to pharmaceutical drug barons, but to Hippocrates, who described people exhibiting ADHD-type behaviour as “restless souls” with a simple “overbalance of fire over water.” The physician-scientist’s remedy for this overbalance? “Barley rather than wheat bread, fish rather than meat, water drinks, and many natural and diverse physical activities.' Beats being doped up to the eyeballs any day.
An opinion piece by Laura J Snook, MSN UK News Editor November 13, 2007
It was probably nailing my teacher’s coat to the desk while he was still wearing it that did it. That and glueing his packet of peanuts to the classroom ceiling, at a precisely-calculated five millimetres beyond his furthest reach.
It was the climax of what I – and most of my pre-teen classmates – considered a sustained comedy campaign, a bit of light-hearted high-jinx designed to redress the teacher-student balance of power. It wasn’t my first and nor would it be my last, even though this particular incident triggered a catastrophic sense of humour failure in said faculty member, who mysteriously vanished overnight.
Had I been born a decade or so later, I doubt I’d be writing this today. Rather than spending almost 20 years inventing new ways to terrorise a succession of teachers, lecturers and employers – fuelling other forms of creativity, including writing, in the process – I’d have been given a massive dose of Ritalin and left in a corner to rot.
Ancient roots
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), described by Hippocrates as early as 493BC, is billed by the modern medical fraternity as a neurological disorder usually characterised – especially in children – by inattentiveness, restlessness, forgetfulness and hyperactivity. Genetic in nature, it affects around five per cent of the world’s population and is often treated with a combination of medications, behaviour modification, lifestyle changes and counselling.
In 1999, a study in the US concluded that, after a period of 12 months, medication was more effective in the treatment of ADHD than behavioural therapy. In the years since, prescriptions in the UK have tripled. Around 500,000 children in Britain are currently believed to have ADHD. Of those, 55,000 are on medication, at an annual cost to the NHS of roughly £28m.
Recent revelation
But new research – by the authors of the original study – suggests drugs don’t work in the long-term and, alarmingly, their impact may actually be negative. Take 14-year-old Craig Buxton, whose family kept a video diary of his behaviour. The footage, which was screened on Panorama, shows in shocking detail his night terrors, explosive tantrums and relentless acts of aggression. At one point, Craig breaks down and cries: “Why am I like this, mum? I don’t want to feel like this, I don’t want to be like this. Help me.” He has been taking ADHD medication for a decade.
Critics are now questioning whether this so-called chronic developmental disorder is really a disorder at all. Dr Fred Baughman, a child neurologist on the other side of the Atlantic, has spent his professional life examining hundreds of children supposedly suffering from ADHD – and has found nothing abnormal or diseased about them. Nor has he found any hard evidence to suggest ADHD is actually a disease, or that it needs any treatment other than willpower, love and support. As he puts it, “it is the biggest health care fraud in history.”
An expert opines
Speaking to MSN UK News, Dr Baughman said: “I have discovered and described real diseases and, having examined hundreds said to have this ‘disorder’ or ‘disease’, I have Fred Baughman found nothing wrong, abnormal or diseased about them. I have also found no proof in the medical scientific literature of the world that ADHD is an objective, demonstrable abnormality, disease or disorder. It is the biggest health care fraud in history.
“The bigger-than-ADHD picture is that they – psychiatry in collusion with Big Pharma – have pledged to call all emotional and behavioural, psychological or mental symptoms ‘diseases’ due to chemical imbalances of the brain, needing not willpower, not love, support or adaptability, but ‘chemical balancers’ – in other words, pills.”
Cash cow
A conspiracy theory? Perhaps. But when drug-making leviathans in the US (the pursuit-of-superficial-perfection capital of the world) have dedicated ADHD sales forces, you can’t help but wonder who’s really creating the demand. One thing is beyond question: there is an awful lot of money to be made selling drugs – and not just the illegal ones. In the current climate of offspring-as-accessories, any quick-fix for children perceived as less than perfect is unlikely to gather any dust on the shelves.
There are, of course, some children who genuinely need pharmaceutical intervention. However, more often than not, this so-called disorder is really the result of combining excessively spirited children with criminally sub-standard parenting skills – quite the Molotov cocktail. In cases where a child becomes disruptive due to lack of parental care, affection or stimulation, the impairment belongs not to the child, but to the surrounding adults.
Simply semantics
Let’s take another look at those symptoms listed earlier: inattentiveness, restlessness, forgetfulness and hyperactivity. In non-medical speak: fidgeting, forgetting things, talking excessively, running around a lot and being easily distracted. What child isn’t? The problem here is one of perspective. I was thrilled to be alive and found my teachers’ monotonous tones, disinterest in their subject and failure to challenge me a total turn-off. They, in turn, found me disruptive (which I was: it helped relieve the brain-putrefying boredom).
But the real concern isn’t the noisy kids vaulting over furniture and terrorising their teachers (within reason), it’s the quiet children who are completely incapable of engaging with the people around them: the silent insular ones, who go unnoticed by society until they massacre their school mates.
If I ever have children (which I won’t), and they turn out to be unusually spirited (which they would), I like to think I’d turn not to pharmaceutical drug barons, but to Hippocrates, who described people exhibiting ADHD-type behaviour as “restless souls” with a simple “overbalance of fire over water.” The physician-scientist’s remedy for this overbalance? “Barley rather than wheat bread, fish rather than meat, water drinks, and many natural and diverse physical activities.' Beats being doped up to the eyeballs any day.
An opinion piece by Laura J Snook, MSN UK News Editor November 13, 2007
Monday, October 29, 2007
What if ..
REFRESH - Go to Home-Page
(1) In October 01, an Agency for Children’s Services case was falsely “Indicated” for attempted suicide allegedly with an over dose of prescription drugs. Case was “indicated” despite medical documentation [in patient psychiatric unit discharge papers], along with the treating psychiatrists evaluation and other physical evidence disproving the “indicated” suicide theory. Estranged abusive, vindictive husband had called ACS three times prior to this “indicated” case all unfounded.
(2) Thirty eight thousand dollars out of 40 thousand something dollars in back child support owed to subject mother of said false indicated case by estranged husband disappeared behind closed doors, without mothers knowledge, permission or signature. twenty five hundred or so had been sent to mother in September 03.
(2) Said “indicated false case was then “concealed” by the Richmond County Court and Staten Island Family Court Services for the next five years, while the subject of this false case was accused of being a dangerous drug addict who should have no contact with her children, yet repeatedly denied drug testing. [Intrinsic and extrinsic fraud]
(3) Subject mother of indicated case frustrated with allegations of her being a drug addict, desperate to see her children, and being denied drug testing went for her own private hair drug test through her place of employment using Quest Diagnostic Labs, test was 100% negative.
(4) Subject mother then desperately attempted to have this negative hair drug test entered onto the record, hearing officer refused to accept the test, or to allow subject mother any visitation with her children. [There was an appearance of an attempt at ONE supervised visit where children claimed they did not want to see subject mother.] Children told a witness the following day they were afraid their father would get angry if they saw the subject mother, so they declined.
(5) After eighteen months of the estranged husband and the court keeping subject mother and her children apart, estranged husband via his attorney Catherine Bridge had filed for custody, subject mother had no money to retain an attorney; she was given a court appointed attorney Mario Acunzo.
(6) Subject mother was now being charged with child support yet her industry was destroyed by 9/11. Child Support was building, and arrears were being applied.
(7) Subject mother was threatened by her court appointed attorney with never seeing her children again if she fought her estranged husband on the custody issue. Subject mother was desperate to see her children, she agreed to allow her estranged husband to have custody. Mother could not figure out how her estranged husbands “word” along with the family court services “word” that she was a drug addict was accepted yet her proof [negative hair drug test] that she was not a drug addict was deliberately kept off the record. Mothers biggest mistake was trusting her court appointed attorney.
(8) Subject mother and her children were never reunited, court gave mother “visitation” only at sports games and after school activities, ordered father to keep mother informed of such events.
(9) Father refused to allow mother to visit with children, by refusing to send her any information on after school activates and or sporting events. (2002-2007)
(10) Despite numerous motions by mother pro se, pleading with the court over the next three years to give her visitation/custody, the court refused to reunite mother and children.
(11) Despite numerous letters to James Veloce, [deputy court clerk,] William Quirk [court clerk,] to the grievance committee, Office of Professional Discipline, The Commission on Judicial Conduct, Sherrill Spatz [The special inspector general for bias matters] The Bar Association, Martin F. Horn, Commissioner and Chief Judge Kaye mother and children are still not reunited.
(12) Mother finds out about false indicated case from a Social Worker with ACS after mother contacted them, to plead with them to investigate the alienation as child abuse.
Mother contacted Albany and had an administrative review opened wherein case was over turned on the original evidence available to them from the beginning.
(13) Mother via her civil rights attorney sues the Administration of Children’s Services and the City for Malicious Prosecution and Negligent Misrepresentation.
(14) Mother found out that father is living Aggie Panepinto.
(15) Mother finds out that estranged husbands coaching job with the CYO is under the direction of Joseph Panepinto. Mother becomes curious as to the connection.
(16) Mother finds out that Joseph Panepinto is married to Supreme Court Judge Barbara Panepinto. Mother begins to wonder if this could be considered a political connection or is it just a suspicious coincidence.
(17) Mother finds something [in writing] stating that Aggie Panepinto uses her camera for child pornography.
(18) Mother borrows 15k from a friend to hire an attorney, and a psychologist to act as a consultant to the attorney to rebut the lies and to pay off arrears after she was put in jail for the third time on Child Support arrears. Mother is now not able to work she is suffering horrendous stress from this situation.
(19) Mother’s attorney files a summons and complaint for a divorce in January 2007, along with a Pendenti Lite motion to bring the custody case up to her home town [Westchester] along with the Divorce. Mothers Attorney fills out papers with joint custody, knowing joint custody WILL NOT WORK with a severe alienator, and he asks me to sign and agree, I REFUSE!
(20) Estranged Husbands attorney Catherine Bridge, submitted her answer, claiming that Jospeh Panepinto, works for catholic charities and she claims that the CYO is not part of the catholic charities. [Please entertain me and type in catholic charities and notice under youth- it clearly states CYO Director Jospeh Panepinto.
(21) Judge Lubell in Westchester granted estranged husbands motion via his attorney in estranged husbands absence; a motion for forum non-conveniens. The case has been in limbo with lost papers or other mishaps since then. My attorney who is well versed in Parental Alienation and is an alienated father himself suggests that I voluntarily terminate my parental rights, and that once I do that my children will come running back to me.
I REFUSED!
(22)Then what if the case got sent back down to the original jurisdiction and ended up in Judge Barbara Panepinto's lap?
(23) Then imagine your reaction when your own attorney, opposing counsel, and Judge Panepinto decide behind closed doors that she will NOT consolidate the divorce with the custody case, nor will she recuse herself!
(24) Finally after 2 court dates in front of Judge Panepinto she finally recuses herself, but not before arguing with your attorney from the bench, arms flailing all over the place, (attitude must have been "going back to her roots) "If your client wants me to recuse then file a motion!"
Blah Blah yadda yadda, the scandal, I mean saga continues.. I'll fill in the rest tomorrow...
How can I not wonder what the hell is going on here?
What if you were the judge and this case was sent to you, how would you rule?
What would you think is going on here, incompetent court system/child protective system?
Suspicious coincidence?
Political Connections and perhaps much more?
(1) In October 01, an Agency for Children’s Services case was falsely “Indicated” for attempted suicide allegedly with an over dose of prescription drugs. Case was “indicated” despite medical documentation [in patient psychiatric unit discharge papers], along with the treating psychiatrists evaluation and other physical evidence disproving the “indicated” suicide theory. Estranged abusive, vindictive husband had called ACS three times prior to this “indicated” case all unfounded.
(2) Thirty eight thousand dollars out of 40 thousand something dollars in back child support owed to subject mother of said false indicated case by estranged husband disappeared behind closed doors, without mothers knowledge, permission or signature. twenty five hundred or so had been sent to mother in September 03.
(2) Said “indicated false case was then “concealed” by the Richmond County Court and Staten Island Family Court Services for the next five years, while the subject of this false case was accused of being a dangerous drug addict who should have no contact with her children, yet repeatedly denied drug testing. [Intrinsic and extrinsic fraud]
(3) Subject mother of indicated case frustrated with allegations of her being a drug addict, desperate to see her children, and being denied drug testing went for her own private hair drug test through her place of employment using Quest Diagnostic Labs, test was 100% negative.
(4) Subject mother then desperately attempted to have this negative hair drug test entered onto the record, hearing officer refused to accept the test, or to allow subject mother any visitation with her children. [There was an appearance of an attempt at ONE supervised visit where children claimed they did not want to see subject mother.] Children told a witness the following day they were afraid their father would get angry if they saw the subject mother, so they declined.
(5) After eighteen months of the estranged husband and the court keeping subject mother and her children apart, estranged husband via his attorney Catherine Bridge had filed for custody, subject mother had no money to retain an attorney; she was given a court appointed attorney Mario Acunzo.
(6) Subject mother was now being charged with child support yet her industry was destroyed by 9/11. Child Support was building, and arrears were being applied.
(7) Subject mother was threatened by her court appointed attorney with never seeing her children again if she fought her estranged husband on the custody issue. Subject mother was desperate to see her children, she agreed to allow her estranged husband to have custody. Mother could not figure out how her estranged husbands “word” along with the family court services “word” that she was a drug addict was accepted yet her proof [negative hair drug test] that she was not a drug addict was deliberately kept off the record. Mothers biggest mistake was trusting her court appointed attorney.
(8) Subject mother and her children were never reunited, court gave mother “visitation” only at sports games and after school activities, ordered father to keep mother informed of such events.
(9) Father refused to allow mother to visit with children, by refusing to send her any information on after school activates and or sporting events. (2002-2007)
(10) Despite numerous motions by mother pro se, pleading with the court over the next three years to give her visitation/custody, the court refused to reunite mother and children.
(11) Despite numerous letters to James Veloce, [deputy court clerk,] William Quirk [court clerk,] to the grievance committee, Office of Professional Discipline, The Commission on Judicial Conduct, Sherrill Spatz [The special inspector general for bias matters] The Bar Association, Martin F. Horn, Commissioner and Chief Judge Kaye mother and children are still not reunited.
(12) Mother finds out about false indicated case from a Social Worker with ACS after mother contacted them, to plead with them to investigate the alienation as child abuse.
Mother contacted Albany and had an administrative review opened wherein case was over turned on the original evidence available to them from the beginning.
(13) Mother via her civil rights attorney sues the Administration of Children’s Services and the City for Malicious Prosecution and Negligent Misrepresentation.
(14) Mother found out that father is living Aggie Panepinto.
(15) Mother finds out that estranged husbands coaching job with the CYO is under the direction of Joseph Panepinto. Mother becomes curious as to the connection.
(16) Mother finds out that Joseph Panepinto is married to Supreme Court Judge Barbara Panepinto. Mother begins to wonder if this could be considered a political connection or is it just a suspicious coincidence.
(17) Mother finds something [in writing] stating that Aggie Panepinto uses her camera for child pornography.
(18) Mother borrows 15k from a friend to hire an attorney, and a psychologist to act as a consultant to the attorney to rebut the lies and to pay off arrears after she was put in jail for the third time on Child Support arrears. Mother is now not able to work she is suffering horrendous stress from this situation.
(19) Mother’s attorney files a summons and complaint for a divorce in January 2007, along with a Pendenti Lite motion to bring the custody case up to her home town [Westchester] along with the Divorce. Mothers Attorney fills out papers with joint custody, knowing joint custody WILL NOT WORK with a severe alienator, and he asks me to sign and agree, I REFUSE!
(20) Estranged Husbands attorney Catherine Bridge, submitted her answer, claiming that Jospeh Panepinto, works for catholic charities and she claims that the CYO is not part of the catholic charities. [Please entertain me and type in catholic charities and notice under youth- it clearly states CYO Director Jospeh Panepinto.
(21) Judge Lubell in Westchester granted estranged husbands motion via his attorney in estranged husbands absence; a motion for forum non-conveniens. The case has been in limbo with lost papers or other mishaps since then. My attorney who is well versed in Parental Alienation and is an alienated father himself suggests that I voluntarily terminate my parental rights, and that once I do that my children will come running back to me.
I REFUSED!
(22)Then what if the case got sent back down to the original jurisdiction and ended up in Judge Barbara Panepinto's lap?
(23) Then imagine your reaction when your own attorney, opposing counsel, and Judge Panepinto decide behind closed doors that she will NOT consolidate the divorce with the custody case, nor will she recuse herself!
(24) Finally after 2 court dates in front of Judge Panepinto she finally recuses herself, but not before arguing with your attorney from the bench, arms flailing all over the place, (attitude must have been "going back to her roots) "If your client wants me to recuse then file a motion!"
Blah Blah yadda yadda, the scandal, I mean saga continues.. I'll fill in the rest tomorrow...
How can I not wonder what the hell is going on here?
What if you were the judge and this case was sent to you, how would you rule?
What would you think is going on here, incompetent court system/child protective system?
Suspicious coincidence?
Political Connections and perhaps much more?
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Big Big WIN for Parents and Children
There you have it, CPS and its employees can not threaten parents with court orders or the removal of children because parents assert their 4th and 14th Amendment Rights and refuse to cooperate. Parents do not have to cooperate with CPS what so ever and CPS employees have to go away when parents deny them access to their home and children. They must conclude their investigation without the cooperation of the parents and children.
CPS workers are trained and instructed in this unconstitutional practice in order to conduct an unreasonable search and seizure of the home and child. They are to lie and threaten any way they can.
All parents who were threatened should file a federal lawsuit against DCF, their workers, their supervisors and the police.
Thomas Dutkiewicz
October 22, 2007
Federal Judge Rules Social Worker Fear Tactics Unconstitutional
A federal court in Arizona has ruled that an unsupported threat to place children in custody, made to coerce cooperation with a social services investigation, violates the constitutional guarantee of family privacy and integrity.
As detailed in the March/April 2007 issue of the Court Report, social workers and sheriff’s deputies had come to the home of Home School Legal Defense Association members John and Tiffany Loudermilk, demanding entry based on a six-week-old anonymous tip that the newly constructed home was unsafe for children. The Loudermilks declined consent, as was their right under the Fourth Amendment. After an escalating confrontation at the front door that lasted 40 minutes, the social workers, backed by no fewer than four deputies, threatened to take the Loudermilks’ children into custody and place them in foster care if the Loudermilks continued to deny them entry to their home. An assistant attorney general repeated this threat to HSLDA attorney Thomas Schmidt, who was assisting the Loudermilks during the confrontation.
Under this duress, Mr. and Mrs. Loudermilk allowed the social workers and sheriff’s deputies inside. Within five minutes, the social workers determined that the anonymous tip was false and left.
HSLDA filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Loudermilk family, alleging that the search violated the Fourth Amendment and that the unjustified threat to remove the children was a separate constitutional violation of the family’s Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy and family integrity. The social workers and assistant attorney general moved to dismiss the claims, arguing that neither the search nor the threat to remove the children violated the Loudermilks’ constitutional rights.
On September 27, 2007, the judge ruled in the Loudermilks favor, stating: “Defendants persisted in their threats to remove the children if Plaintiff Parents did not consent to the search, stating that [they] could arrest or handcuff the Parents in front of the children. Based on the allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint, viewed in Plaintiff’s favor, no reasonable official would have believed that his or her conduct was authorized by state or constitutional law.” With regard to the assistant attorney general, the court ruled that “Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that [the attorney] . . . by ‘threat’ exerted ‘coercive pressure’ on them to allow the search of their home so that their children would not be removed.”
The judge’s ruling allows the case to proceed to trial. “The ruling in this case makes it clear that threatening to remove children to gain a parent’s cooperation is unconstitutional,” said James R. Mason, Senior Counsel for HSLDA. “We hope that this ruling will change this common tactic used by investigative caseworkers all over the country.”
Judge’s Ruling in the Loudermilk Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
(requires Adobe Acrobat Reader)
Thomas M. Dutkiewicz, PresidentSpecial Family Advocate on Constitutional ProtectionConnecticut DCF WatchP.O. Box 9775Forestville, CT 06011-9775860-833-4127Admin@connecticutdcfwatch.comwww.connecticutDCFwatch.com
P.S. Check out our web site for the FREE handbook on parental rights. There is also a manual on "reasonable efforts" with sections for Attorneys, Judges and Agencies.
CPS workers are trained and instructed in this unconstitutional practice in order to conduct an unreasonable search and seizure of the home and child. They are to lie and threaten any way they can.
All parents who were threatened should file a federal lawsuit against DCF, their workers, their supervisors and the police.
Thomas Dutkiewicz
October 22, 2007
Federal Judge Rules Social Worker Fear Tactics Unconstitutional
A federal court in Arizona has ruled that an unsupported threat to place children in custody, made to coerce cooperation with a social services investigation, violates the constitutional guarantee of family privacy and integrity.
As detailed in the March/April 2007 issue of the Court Report, social workers and sheriff’s deputies had come to the home of Home School Legal Defense Association members John and Tiffany Loudermilk, demanding entry based on a six-week-old anonymous tip that the newly constructed home was unsafe for children. The Loudermilks declined consent, as was their right under the Fourth Amendment. After an escalating confrontation at the front door that lasted 40 minutes, the social workers, backed by no fewer than four deputies, threatened to take the Loudermilks’ children into custody and place them in foster care if the Loudermilks continued to deny them entry to their home. An assistant attorney general repeated this threat to HSLDA attorney Thomas Schmidt, who was assisting the Loudermilks during the confrontation.
Under this duress, Mr. and Mrs. Loudermilk allowed the social workers and sheriff’s deputies inside. Within five minutes, the social workers determined that the anonymous tip was false and left.
HSLDA filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Loudermilk family, alleging that the search violated the Fourth Amendment and that the unjustified threat to remove the children was a separate constitutional violation of the family’s Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy and family integrity. The social workers and assistant attorney general moved to dismiss the claims, arguing that neither the search nor the threat to remove the children violated the Loudermilks’ constitutional rights.
On September 27, 2007, the judge ruled in the Loudermilks favor, stating: “Defendants persisted in their threats to remove the children if Plaintiff Parents did not consent to the search, stating that [they] could arrest or handcuff the Parents in front of the children. Based on the allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint, viewed in Plaintiff’s favor, no reasonable official would have believed that his or her conduct was authorized by state or constitutional law.” With regard to the assistant attorney general, the court ruled that “Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that [the attorney] . . . by ‘threat’ exerted ‘coercive pressure’ on them to allow the search of their home so that their children would not be removed.”
The judge’s ruling allows the case to proceed to trial. “The ruling in this case makes it clear that threatening to remove children to gain a parent’s cooperation is unconstitutional,” said James R. Mason, Senior Counsel for HSLDA. “We hope that this ruling will change this common tactic used by investigative caseworkers all over the country.”
Judge’s Ruling in the Loudermilk Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
(requires Adobe Acrobat Reader)
Thomas M. Dutkiewicz, PresidentSpecial Family Advocate on Constitutional ProtectionConnecticut DCF WatchP.O. Box 9775Forestville, CT 06011-9775860-833-4127Admin@connecticutdcfwatch.comwww.connecticutDCFwatch.com
P.S. Check out our web site for the FREE handbook on parental rights. There is also a manual on "reasonable efforts" with sections for Attorneys, Judges and Agencies.
Friday, October 19, 2007
False Domestic Violence Accusations Can Lead To Parental Alienation Syndrome
Domestic Violence and Child Abuse destroy lives. These topics are to important to be falsely used and abused in Divorce litigation!
Wake up people, before we can stop or get a hold on either topic, the real abusive adults need to stop crying wolf!
Once an abusive adult manages to remove the other parent, the children take the brunt of the abusers abuse, and that goes for MALE and FEMALE abusers!
Yeah I said it- WOMEN perpetrators of Domestic Violence- Wake up- there are women abusers that are so abusive they make some men abusers look like amatures! I know of more than one personally..
It's time to stop buying into the B.S. fed to you.. by special interest groups with a personal agenda!
Below in red are my opinions on this article..
From..
David Heleniak
October 18, 2007
False domestic violence (DV) restraining orders can lead to Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), a pattern of thoughts and behavior that can develop in a child of separated parents where the custodial parent causes the child to unjustifiably fear and/or hate the other parent.
Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is a pattern of thoughts and behavior that can develop in a child of separated parents where the custodial parent causes the child, through manipulation and access blocking, to unjustifiably fear and/or hate the other parent. PAS is more than brainwashing, in that the child comes to actively participate in the degradation of the target parent, coming up with original (often ludicrous) reasons to fear/hate him or her.
Domestic violence (DV) restraining orders are a perfect weapon for an alienating parent. Typically, in addition to removing an accused abuser from the marital home, a DV restraining order also "temporarily" bars the accused abuser from seeing his or her children, and "temporarily" gives the accusing parent exclusive physical custody. And temporary, in the Family Court, has a funny way of becoming permanent.
Obtaining a restraining order based on a false allegation of domestic violence gets the target parent out of the house and out of the picture. A father who can't see his kids, for example, is unable to rebut the lie "Daddy doesn't love you anymore. That's why he left you." Nor can he rebut the alternate lie, "Daddy is dangerous. The wise judge said so. That's why he can't see you."
Often, if an accused abuser is allowed to see his or her children, it is in a supervised visitation center. As Stan Rains observed in "Supervised Visitation Center Dracula," "The demeaning of the 'visiting' parent is readily visible from the minute that a person enters the 'secured facility' with armed guards, officious case workers with their clipboards and arrogant, domineering managers.... The child's impression is that all of these authority figures see Daddy as a serious and dangerous threat. The only time a child sees this type of security is on TV showing prisons filled with bad people." Not only does visitation in a visitation center send the clear message to the child that the "visiting" parent is a bad person, if children decline to see their parents under such a setting, they are generally not forced to do so. More perversely, if a child is encouraged by the custodial parent to refuse to see the target parent, there will be no significant repercussion to the targeting parent, and, generally, the child will not be forced to see the target parent.
The more time a child spends away from the alienated parent, the worse the alienation will become. As psychologist Glenn F. Cartwright remarked in his article "Expanding the Parameters of Parental Alienation Syndrome," "the old adage that time heals all wounds, such is not the case with PAS, where the passage of time worsens rather than heals the affliction. This is not to say that time is unimportant: on the contrary, time remains a vital variable for all the players. To heal the relationship, the child requires quality time with the lost parent to continue and repair the meaningful association that may have existed since birth. This continued communication also serves as a reality check for the child to counter the effects of ongoing alienation at home. Likewise, the lost parent needs time with the child to ensure that contact is not completely lost and to prevent the alienation from completely destroying what may be left of a normal, loving relationship....
The alienating parent, on the other hand, requires time to complete the brainwashing of the child without interference. The manipulation of time becomes the prime weapon in the hands of the alienator who uses it to structure, occupy, and usurp the child's time to prevent 'contaminating' contact with the lost parent, depriving both of their right to spend time together and furthering the goal of total alienation. Unlike cases of child abuse where time away from the abuser sometimes helps in repairing a damaged relationship, in PAS time away from the lost parent furthers the goal of alienation.
The usual healing properties of time are lost when it is used as the primary weapon to inflict injury on the lost parent by alienating the child." Along these lines, Dr. Richard A. Gardner, who coined the term "Parental Alienation Syndrome" in 1985, maintained: "If there is to be any hope of their reestablishing a relationship with the targeted parent, PAS children must spend significant time with him (her). They must have living experiences that will demonstrate that the PAS parent is not noxious and/or dangerous."
A parent willing to falsely accuse the other parent of domestic violence would probably be willing to poison a child against him or her. Add to this the problem that a judge willing to "err on the side of caution" by entering a DV restraining order based on a dubious false allegation would probably not be willing to do what was necessary to prevent the development of PAS.
PAS is heart-wrenching and, tragically, common. If the DV restraining order system could be reformed so that only real victims obtained restraining orders and only real abusers were thrown out their houses, I predict that the number of PAS cases would be greatly reduced. Let's try to get there.My opinion on this subject is that - False Domestic Violence Accusations Can Lead To Parental Alienation Syndrome and so can FALSE CHILD ABUSE accusations, used to gain the upper hand in an ugly divorce, I know this first hand!
The LIES my estranged husband told are not only causing my children to be alienated from me and the rest of thier family, but HE COST THE CITY A LAWSUIT ON MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND NEGLIEGENT MISREPRESENTATION!
My children are old enough to understand this article and to understand that the same way this works against fathers, WHEN THIER FATHER used the same tactic against me [FALSE- Child abuse-restraining Orders] he was able to KEEP ME FROM MY BABIES!]
When will they figure out that everything they've been told is A LIE!
And apparently there are some strings being pulled behind closed doors to KEEP ME OUT OF THIER LIVES IN SPITE OF THE OVER TURNED B.S. ACS "indicated" case he used to get me out of thier lives originally!
Great Job New York!
I am a survivor of D.V. with the scars and transcripts to prove it, yet I allowed him to stay in their lives WHENEVER he wanted to see them, as long as he didn't abuse me! What an azz I was, the ultimate abuse was FALSE CHILD ABUSE ACCUSATIONS and taking my children away from me, and thanks to those women's groups I can wipe my *&% with a truly deserved, fairly obtained O.P. [apparently they see no reason to help a turly abused woman, once she's lost her children to the abuser!]
Great job "NOW" !
Original Article,
American Chronicle: False Domestic Violence Accusations Can Lead To Parental Alienation Syndrome
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
My Style
I'm no child, I've lived a diverse life, I've come into contact with people from all over the place..
I've worked in neighborhood diners in Brooklyn and Staten Island to Five Star Hotels in Times Square..
Hell, for seven years I worked as close to the corporate world as I'm ever gonna come, I was a Banquet Bartender/Server and Captain, for ton's of Corporate functions.
Now don't get me wrong I've played nice with these people in the past, even though I would never voluntarily spend exorbitant amounts of time with many of them we were able to coexist for hours, days or sometimes week's on end and not kill each other.
Why am I bringing this up, what possess me to write about this, exactly how does this subject belong on a blog named 'Disgusted With The System"?
Well, I've noticed lately I'm getting more and more people pissed off at me, and guess what?
I don't give a &^%$ !!
I've learned to be assertive and if I want or need something; I do what has to be done to get it.
Now a few years ago that would have been a major problem, but now I couldn't care less if they like me or not, if we agree or not.
I've learned to say "Ok great, were gonna have to agree to disagree and move on"
I don't give in anymore, I don't let people bully or intimidate me anymore, I stand my ground firmly with both feet planted below me and I know have the knowledge to it back up.
I've also noticed more people are mentioning "My Style" I've always had people say they either liked or didn't like "my style" and I took it personal if they were negative.
Now? Ok whatever..
I'm wondering if I've become so hardened by the system that I'm thinking - Ok, I have bigger fish to fry today and if your gonna be part of the problem and not part of the solution get out of my way.
Or have I grown emotionally, by educating myself. I've studied subjects that I never thought I would have a need to know inside and out, such as personalities, and personality disorders.
Is it that I can now spot a predator or a doormat, from a mile away, and treat them accordingly?
Way back when I was lunch meat for predators, I didn't know any better, but now...
The superficial charming psychopath has a glaring green ring around them, that shines brighter than the northern star.
And the pathetic woo is me attitude coming from the Co Dependant gives me a knot in my stomach, so I am always ready to vomit when one of them comes along.
Or how about the me me me Narcissist, Oh phulease later for you dude, my needs are just as important as you think yours are, so be gone with your bad self!
Yes the system has raped me of my innocence, pulled me out of that pink bubble I use to live in where everyone was good hearted except my ex, but as with any bad situation I can still find something good in it all, I have become a wiser woman than I once was, much wiser!
I've worked in neighborhood diners in Brooklyn and Staten Island to Five Star Hotels in Times Square..
Hell, for seven years I worked as close to the corporate world as I'm ever gonna come, I was a Banquet Bartender/Server and Captain, for ton's of Corporate functions.
Now don't get me wrong I've played nice with these people in the past, even though I would never voluntarily spend exorbitant amounts of time with many of them we were able to coexist for hours, days or sometimes week's on end and not kill each other.
Why am I bringing this up, what possess me to write about this, exactly how does this subject belong on a blog named 'Disgusted With The System"?
Well, I've noticed lately I'm getting more and more people pissed off at me, and guess what?
I don't give a &^%$ !!
I've learned to be assertive and if I want or need something; I do what has to be done to get it.
Now a few years ago that would have been a major problem, but now I couldn't care less if they like me or not, if we agree or not.
I've learned to say "Ok great, were gonna have to agree to disagree and move on"
I don't give in anymore, I don't let people bully or intimidate me anymore, I stand my ground firmly with both feet planted below me and I know have the knowledge to it back up.
I've also noticed more people are mentioning "My Style" I've always had people say they either liked or didn't like "my style" and I took it personal if they were negative.
Now? Ok whatever..
I'm wondering if I've become so hardened by the system that I'm thinking - Ok, I have bigger fish to fry today and if your gonna be part of the problem and not part of the solution get out of my way.
Or have I grown emotionally, by educating myself. I've studied subjects that I never thought I would have a need to know inside and out, such as personalities, and personality disorders.
Is it that I can now spot a predator or a doormat, from a mile away, and treat them accordingly?
Way back when I was lunch meat for predators, I didn't know any better, but now...
The superficial charming psychopath has a glaring green ring around them, that shines brighter than the northern star.
And the pathetic woo is me attitude coming from the Co Dependant gives me a knot in my stomach, so I am always ready to vomit when one of them comes along.
Or how about the me me me Narcissist, Oh phulease later for you dude, my needs are just as important as you think yours are, so be gone with your bad self!
Yes the system has raped me of my innocence, pulled me out of that pink bubble I use to live in where everyone was good hearted except my ex, but as with any bad situation I can still find something good in it all, I have become a wiser woman than I once was, much wiser!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
