BECOME A PARENT ADVOCATE TODAY! CONTACT US AND SUBSCRIBE NOW TO VOLUNTEER. Join the live Parent Advocate Meeting!
on Zoom at 7 pm Pacific Time
every Saturday! Just follow the calendar link.
Join the Discussion:
Supporting Code and Law: The Constitution of the United States
Supporting Articles: Protecting Parents and Prospective Parents with Disabilities
Success Stories: Family Awarded $1.1 Million After Kids Were Removed From Home
Legal Disclaimer: This Website provides educational information and resources to those who is seeking to educate themselves on the family/juvenile court process. Any information provided may not be construed as the giving of legal advice to any person about a particular legal matter and should not be relied upon as the basis for taking a particular action or refraining from taking a particular action in any legal matter. If you want or need legal advice about a particular legal matter, you should consult a lawyer.
Parent Advocate Log IN:
Thank you for putting your trust in us.
We value your privacy and do not share any personal information with any entity or organization without prior consent. Our staff of volunteers are here to help you because we care. If you believe that your privacy has been violated, please contact admin and we will resolve the issue directly.
Contributed by Anna M. Lambert:
Parent Advocate and a Grandmother to a child the state of Missouri took under a false allegation.
"The county courts cases that where heard in those non compliant administrative family courts are not even real courts but a criminal action involved in RICO and RACKETEERING incidents and those JUDGES, and ATTORNEYS involved in such CRIMINAL action after cases go through FEDERAL COURTS can and will lose their PRIVILEGE to serve in their current position and their right to practice law will and can be REVOKED by the actions of their VICTIMS across this great nation which there alone parents with even closed cases can get their cases investigated for JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT and get their closed cases reviewed , and judgement over turned and children returned.
Google US courts and forms for civil cases. Anyone can file and anyone can establish their own case and due to the fact these CPS cases are Administrative courts and are non-compliant to Judicial rules. They are already in several violations of conflict of interest which is JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT which is grounds for every case to be reviewed and over ruled when an injunction is implied.
RICO and Racketeering: Every CPS case is criminal intent to defraud the federal government funding, if parents have not been charged with neglect or abuse the state workers and foster parents even manipulate the court by their fake cry acts. Talk of desperate criminals that have to resort to crying on the stand pretending to worry about children and judges are stupid enough to fall far these pitiful acts. When has a court become a stage for pathetic criminal actors that put on a play for profit?
And yes, families have the CD to verify these action by state officials and placement providers.
COMPLAINT (42 U.S.C. § 1983 Interference with Parental Rights, Retaliation, Privacy and Racketeering) (42 U.S.C. § 1983 RETALIATION AND INVASION OF PRIVACY, INTERFERENCE WITH PARENTAL RIGHTS AND TORT OF INVASION OF PRIVACY)
The allegations set forth above are fully incorporated herein by this form. Edit to your specifications:
...This allegation involves the acts of those Defendants who stopped
reunification of child /children in case _____________
COUNT ONE: The above actions constitutes a scheme or artifice to defraud Plaintiffs of custody of ___________ __________ to damage or eliminate Plaintiffs claims against Defendants set forth in this litigation by manipulating _______________into believing the mother had drugs in system which was later proven fraud and falsified, that court needed to protect _________ and to make false allegations of abuse to assure termination of Plaintiffs parental rights in all cases.
COUNT TWO: Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs parental interest in biological children constitutes a property interest that Defendants knowingly and intentionally schemed to deprive Plaintiffs of by manufacturing false allegations of physical, negligence, and/or potential sexual abuse.
This racketeering count, based on the facts set forth above, is brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1962, with the predicate offenses of scheme or artifice to defraud pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1962(c), retaliation against a witness ( 18 U.S.C. §1513(e) and witness tampering (CR) 18 U.S.C. § 1513(b).
COUNT THREE: 18 USC§1962(d) CONSPIRACY
Plaintiffs incorporates herein all the preceding numbered paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
By reason of the aforesaid circumstances and events, the Racketeering
Defendants, together and with the known and unknown, unlawfully conspired together
and otherwise acted, and are currently conspiring together and otherwise are acting, in
such manner as to violate the provision of Title 18 USC 1962(a) and Title 18 USC
1962 (c) in violation of Title 18 USC 1962 (d).
By reason of Defendants conspiring to violate said provisions of 18 USC
the Plaintiffs (a) have monetarily injured in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, the
precise amount of which is presently unknown and will be proved at trial and
(b)continue to be damaged and hurt by the illegal acts
COUNT FOUR 18: USC 1962(a) DIVESTITURE
Plaintiff incorporates herein all proceeding numbered paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
At all times relevant hereto, the Racketeering Defendants have collectively constituted an enterprise, as defined in 18 USC s 1961 (4) to wit, an association which enterprise has been engaged in and the activities of which affect interstate commerce. As such the defendants have witnessed tampered and retaliated against a witness and exploited them under 18 USC 1962(c).
In committing the above referenced actions and/or omissions, the
Retaliation Defendants, and each of them, acted under color of state law, and engaged
in conduct that was the proximate cause of a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of
America, including but not limited to retaliating against Plaintiffs for asserting their
constitutional right to seek redress of grievances from government and for exercising
Their First amendment right to defend themselves from the false allegations raised by
Defendants and providing ___courts___ with Plaintiff’s mental health report prepared by___state recommended provider evaluation __thereby violating Plaintiff’s civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for the
above described violations of Plaintiffs Constitutional rights. Plaintiffs are entitled to
all rights, remedies, in law or in equity, available to them under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiffs have suffered the loss of custody and time with and suffered
humiliation and degradation because of Defendants’ Unconstitutional acts.
Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their reasonable costs and attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages
If the Supreme Court of Appeals denied your appeal, this court is the next step in your fight for parental rights to your child(ren). At this level, you will need to file several forms.
You will need to write a "Petition For Request For Administrative Review" and "Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus".
If you feel that you have suffered from a direct violation of your Civil Rights, be sure to visit the Federal Supreme Court page and file your civil complaint with your local Federal Supreme Court office.
You have the right to sue for reparations and punitive damages against anyone who violates your Constitutional Rights. Contracts must be entered into freely by both of the parties and include mutual assent. ... A contract can't be enforced against a person who was forced or coerced into entering the ... Duress is wrongful pressure exerted upon a person in order to coerce that person into a contract that he or she ordinarily wouldn't enter. This is a direct violation of The RICO Act.
File your complaint today! The form is located below.
Brought to you by
Earth SoL Ministries:
For Peace, Justice, and Prosperity for ALL
WE ARE HERE TO HELP!
THE LAW OF ONE
We are all ONE
And when ONE is harmed, ALL are harmed.
And when ONE is helped, ALL are helped.
And when ONE is healed, ALL are healed.
There fore, in the name of who I AM,
And I AM ONE with ALL that is,
I ask that only that
Which is in the highest good of ALL concerned happen.
And I give thanks that this is done.
SO BE IT AND SO IT IS.
The Coalition For the Protection
oF Children and Families
Subscribe Today! Together we can make the world a better place.
Please be sure to share your progress with us too! We want to share your success with others.
Join Our Team:
42 U.S. Code § 12202 - State immunity A State shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States from an action in  Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this chapter. In any action against a State for a violation of the requirements of this chapter, remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available for such a violation to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in an action against any public or private entity other than a State. (Pub. L. 101–336, title V, § 502, July 26, 1990, 104 Stat. 370.)
File your complaint today! The form is located below.
Sign the petitions!
Write or call your State and Federal representatives and make them aware of the criminal activity.
Write or call your local newspapers and television stations and ask for them to do some investigative reporting on the crimes committed against our children and parents.
THESE ARE JUST THE BASIC CASES to START READING, Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978); Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (February 24, 1972); Napue v. Ilinois, 360 U.S. 264 (June 15, 1959); Pyles v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213 (1942); Alcorta v. Texas, 355 U.S. 28 (November 12, 1957); United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (June 24, 1976): Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S 83 (May 13, 1963); Costanich v. Dept. of Social and Health Services, 627 F.3d 1101, at 1108-1109 (December 3, 2010); Costanich v. Wash. State Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 138 Wash. App. 547, 156 P.3d 232 (App. Ct. 2007): Beltran v. Santa Clara County, 514 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2008): Jones v. State, 170 Wash.2d 338, 242 P.3d 825, 831-32 (2010),