Pages

Tuesday, December 25, 2012

Us Lepers.

I am the leper of today and my family is being treated like we have no rights. You can't get anyone to touch this story. I have been trying for months to get the media to just look at this story to no avail. So I am going to post the legal brief I wrote on Nov 21, 2012.

I am going to pose this question. Everyone talks about how there rights arebeing destroyed. Well there is a reason for that. What we sow we reap. If you will not fight for rights of the least you will loose yours also. So my question is this, who will fight for ours?


November 21, 2012
Ulster County Family Court
16 Lucas Avenue
Kingston NY 12401

The Honorable Anthony McGinty,

Dear Sir, I am writing this letter/Motion with all due respect to you and the court. There are multiple violations of due process, and my family's rights are being violated. The first and most prevalent is competency of council. On September 7th, 2012 I stated some of these issues in front of the court and, with attorney Michael C. Mauceri. The second issue is the jurisdictional issue that is posed by UCDSS and there filing of the neglect petition.
I have been making the following request by my attorney, Michael C. Mauceri, as listed below.
Every single order of protection that has been issued by the court I have asked for him to appeal the decision, and been told no or it would not do any good. Sometimes both. It isn't his place to decide it wouldn't do any good. Every order that you have given I have asked him to appeal it. To no avail.
He has been asked to help me form and write a proper motion to dismiss and have been told no.
He has been asked to help me form and write a proper motion for summary judgement as a matter of law and been told no.
When I have asked him about case law he has stated to me he doesn't need any. He has all he needs which I have seen my file there isn't much there. As you know your Honor case law is one of the way our legal system has been developed and upheld.
When I asked him to appeal your decision on the evidence that was entered in the court from Sex Offender Management he wouldn't do that either.
When I asked him to get the transcripts for the hearing for court date and have been told no that he couldn't get them. (The transcripts for the July 24th hearing are at the court when they are quoted here)
This has been a violation of my due process right to competent council.

As stated in the The Constitution of the State of New York
Article 1 section 11
[Equal protection of laws; discrimination in civil rights prohibited]
§11. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. No person shall, because of race, color, creed or religion, be subjected to any discrimination in his or her civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state. (New. Adopted by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938; amended by vote of the people November 6, 2001.)
This case has not given us the equal protection under the law, and has been a violation of our civil rights.
The first point I want to raise is the fact that if I submit a document to the court that I know is fraudulent that I could be facing criminal charges under either;
§ 175.35 Offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree
A person is guilty of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree when, knowing that a written instrument contains a false statement or false information, and with intent to defraud the state or any political subdivision, public authority or public benefit corporation of the state, he offers or presents it to a public office, public servant, public authority or public benefit corporation with the knowledge or belief that it will be filed with, registered or recorded in or otherwise become a part of the records of such public office, public servant, public authority or public benefit corporation.
Offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree is a class E felony.
Or charged with;
§ 175.30 Offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree
A person is guilty of offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree when, knowing that a written instrument contains a false statement or false information, he offers or presents it to a public office or public servant with the knowledge or belief that it will be filed with, registered or recorded in or otherwise become a part of the records of such public office or public servant.
Offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
This is not equal protection when Jennifer Allen filled out an indicated report and wrote the neglect petition without any evidence to support what she claims as fact. According to her own testimony given on July 24th in the court she said she was the one that filed the petition. (see transcripts for July 24th page 47 lines 8 thru 21 as questioned by Ms. Pamela Joern)
Q. Okay. And what was the conclusion that you reached, after, at the end of your investigation. Did you indicated the report or unfound it.
We indicated the report.
Q. Okay. And did you
Judge McGinty: Against who?
The report was indicated against both Mr. And Mrs Robertson.
Q. And what was it indicated against them for?
It was indicated for inadequate guardianship and other, as refers to a sex offender in the home.
This is also a violation of social service law on indicating a report also.
§ 424-d. Determinations rendered on reports of abuse or neglect of children in residential facilities or programs and actions to be taken. With respect to determinations made pursuant to subdivision seven of section four hundred twenty-four-c of this title: 1. A report shall be indicated if the investigation reveals some credible evidence that a child in residential care has been abused or neglected, as those terms are defined by subdivisions one and two of section four hundred twelve-a of this title, and a specific custodian is identified as being responsible, whether in whole or in part, for such abuse or neglect of the child, by:
It states credible evidence has to be used.

Credible evidence as defined by Black Law Dictionary 9th edition;

credible evidence. (17c) Evidence that is worthy of belief; trustworthy evidence.
It is factual evidence. Not a belief. As stated by Jennifer Allen the inadequate guardianship is based on the fact that my wife has left me alone with the children. Well there is a difference between belief and fact.
There has been no credible evidence submitted to the fact of the claim of inadequate guardianship. As per her own testimony on page 95 lines 6 thru 25 of the July 24th transcripts
Q. Do you know what , or did you discern what Mrs. Robertson did for a living while you were doing your investigation?
A. Yes
Q. And, what was that?
She's a full-time stay at home mother
Q. So She's at home 24-7, right?
I didn't ask her if she was home 24-7
Q. But she's a full time
She's a full time stay at home mother
Q. She's a full time caregiver.?
It doesn't necessarily mean she's a
Q. To her child right?
She's a full time caregiver to her children, correct.
Q. Now, you said that Mr. Robertson had unsupervised contact. How did you discern that?
I said that I didn't know that he didn't have unsupervised contact.
Q. So you don't know whether he does or doesn't?
I would say I dint know that he doesn't.
So Jennifer Allen indicated in the New York Central Registry on a belief not a factual credible source of evidence.
In the neglect petitions she filed she made claims of fact:
In the petition for (Taken out to protect my family) it was stated:
4. Upon information and belief, the children are neglected children on the following grounds and based upon the following facts[specify grounds of child neglect under Family court act 1012 as well as supporting facts]
Everything under this is what is being claimed as the reason for the neglect.
They made 5 claims in the section checked B
In providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship
2. By unreasonably inflicting or allowing to be inflicted harm, or substantial risk thereof, including the infliction of excessive corporal punishment:
3. Or by misusing alcoholic beverages and/or illicit drugs to the extent that he loses self-control of his actions
4. And the claim of me being a level 3 registered sex offender
The latter one is not in dispute. But the appeals court has stated that:
The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court order, denied the petitions, and dismissed the proceedings, holding that "[t]he mere fact that a designated sex offender resides in the home is not sufficient to establish neglect absent a showing of actual danger to the subject children" (Matter of Afton C. (James C.), 71 AD3d 887, 888 [2d Dept 2010]).
I have asked my lawyer the same question I am asking here. It is not legal for DSS or an agent of DSS to put anything they want on the paper without any proof or evidence at all. But to get the court to hear the case that is exactly what they did. This court doesn't hold jurisdiction to hear the case, not jurisdiction of where we may have lived but jurisdiction because the evidence never existed as they claimed. This is real violation of the rights of my family. A due process violation.
It would be different if there had been some form of evidence but none was submitted to the excessive corporal punishment, or the abuse of alcohol and or drugs and Jennifer Allen admitted to not having any on the inadequate guardianship. The only evidence that is there is my background. That alone isn't enough to get neglect which also means that there isn't enough to continue the case.
If the neglect petition was illegally filed then the court doesn't have the authority to hear the case.
In the matter of Jones V. Jones 2012 NY Slip Op 50257(U)
There is three statuary requirements that have to be met if not this case has to be dismissed according to the court

1st requirement
Actual or imminent danger of physical, emotional, or mental harm to the child.
The Family Court Act defines a "neglected child" as a child less than 18 years of age "whose physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of his parent to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship, by misusing a drug or drugs; or by misusing alcoholic beverages to the extent that he loses self-control of his actions" (Family Court Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]).
The first statutory element requires proof of actual or imminent danger of physical, mental or emotional impairment to the child (see Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. [Dante M.] v Denise J., 87 NY2d 73, 78-79 [1995]). This prerequisite to a finding of neglect ensures that the Family Court, in deciding whether to authorize state intervention, focuses on serious harm or potential harm to the child, not just on what might be deemed undesirable parental behavior.
The statute does not define "impairment" however, it defines "[i]mpairment of emotional health" and "impairment ofmmental or emotional condition" to include "a state of substantially diminished psychological or intellectual functioning in relation to, but not limited to, such factors as failure to thrive, control of aggressive or self-destructive impulses, ability to think and reason, or acting out or misbehavior, including incorrigibility, ungovernability or habitual truancy;nprovided, however, that such impairment must be clearly attributable to the unwillingness or inability of the respondent to exercise a minimum degree of care toward the child" (Family Ct Act § 1012 [h]; Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 370-371 [2004]).
Actual harm is more readily apparent and may be proven through expert medical or psychological testimony or by factual evidence; however, "imminent danger" of impairment is a more elusive concept. "Imminent danger of impairment" to a child is an independent and separate ground on which a neglect finding may be based (Dante M., 87 NY2d at 79). The Court of Appeals has underscored that in determining "imminent danger," the focus must be onnharm or potential harm to the child, rather than what may be deemed undesirable parental behavior. Additionally, the Court of Appeals has cautioned that the potential harm "must be near or impending, not merely possible" (Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d at 369).

The Department may deem in there policy that it is undesirable for me to be in the home with my family but that doesn't give them the right to falsify documents and submit them to the court as fact and violate our rights and tear this family apart in the process.
2nd requirement
The Causal Connection between the Parents' Alleged Misconduct and the Circumstances that Produced the Risk of Impairment
The second statutory element requires proof of a link or causal connection between the parent's conduct and the impairment or imminent danger of impairment to the child (see FCA §1012[f] [I]; [h]). This requirement reflects the Legislature's recognition that the source of emotional or mental impairment — unlike physical injury — may be murky, and that it is unjust to fault a parent too readily. The Legislature, therefore, specified that such impairment must be "clearly attributable" to the parent's failure to exercise the requisite degree of care (Family Ct Act § 1012 [h]; Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d at 369 [2004]; Matter of Linda E., l43 AD2d 904 [2d Dept 1988] [evidence was insufficient to establish a link or causal connection where the child's emotional disorder was not attributable to respondent's parenting]; In re Jayvien E., 70 AD3d 430, 435-436 [1st Dept 2010]).
There has been absolutely nothing submitted to the fact that my children are not healthy and progressing according to there age levels.
3rd requirement
Parental Failure to Exercise a Minimum Degree of Care
The third statutorily required element requires proof that the parent failed to exercise a minimum degree of care "by,misusing a drug or drugs." The court must evaluate parental behavior objectively and determine whether a reasonable and prudent parent have so acted, or failed to act, under the circumstances then and there existing. A minimum degree of care is a "baseline of proper care for children that all parents, regardless of lifestyle or social or economic position, must meet" (Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d at 370). Since the drafters of Article 10 wished tomavoid unwarranted state intervention into private family life and since the purpose of the statute is to protect children from serious harm or potential harm the statutory test is a minimum degree of care "not maximum, not best, not ideal and the failure must be actual, not threatened." (Id.).
So far what Ms. Joern is pushing is that I am a threat to my children. There hasn't been a single factual piece of evidence that was ever given. This is gross miscarriage of justice.
This doesn't even take in to consideration to the fact that Mrs. Joern absolutely lied albeit maybe not on purpose in the contempt hearing papers that where filed on October 24th
Section 8 of Pam Joerns Affidavit says as more fully set forth in the affidavit of Melissa Roach, neither respondent notified the UCDSS that they moved out of Ulster County.
Well that is not true as you can see in the testimony of Jennifer Allen on July 24th (see transcripts page 31 lines 22-24)
For the children to be with her parents and told me that the children were in Pennsylvania and going to stay in Pennsylvania until this matter was dealt with.
So the question I have is why is that DSS seems to continue to put things in the court that are not truth and no evidence and we have to suffer for it.
This is some of the things that I have been arguing with my attorney about but to no avail on my part.
Where is the sworn affidavit by Jennifer Allen to the facts of the neglect petitions that shows the evidence that was there. Without it what is protecting us from them perjuring themselves. If the court allows this to continue then it is a gross violation of justice.
And your Honor I have to respectfully disagree with your order to bring the kids to New York to be interviewed and examined because the burden of proof is always on the side of DSS.
In the matter of Jones V. Jones 2012 NY Slip Op 50257(U)
Notwithstanding ACS's assertions to the contrary, proof of a prima facie case does not create a "presumption" of imminent risk or neglect. A presumption is binding on the court, unless rebutted. A prima facie case simply shifts the burden of going forward to the respondent, however, the burden of proving child maltreatment always remains with ACS (Matter of Philip M., 82 NY2d at 244-245). The respondent may then present proof challenging the prima facie case if she chooses, or rest and permit a decision on the merits on the strength of petitioner's case (In re Christian Q., 32 AD3d 669, 671 [3d Dept 2006]; Matter of Philip M., 82 NY2d at 244-245; In re Jaiden T.G., 89 AD3d 1021 [2d Dept 2011]). Proof of a prima facie case does not necessarily satisfy ACS's ultimate burden of proof (In re Ashley RR., 30 AD3d 699, 700-701 [3d Dept 2006]; Matter of Christian Q., 32 AD3d 669); nor does it compel a finding in accordance with that inference.
According the United States Supreme Court in matters that involve more than just the loss of money there needs a standard of clear and convincing evidence.
See Santosky V Kramer 466 U.S. (1982) 757
This Court has mandated an intermediate standard of proof — "clear and convincing evidence" — when the individual interests at stake in a state proceeding are both "particularly important" and "more substantial than mere loss of money." Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S., at 424. Notwithstanding "the state's `civil labels and good intentions,' " id., at 427, quoting In re Winship, 397 U. S., at 365-366, the Court has deemed this level of certainty necessary to preserve fundamental fairness in a variety of government-initiated proceedings that threaten the individual involved with "a significant deprivation of liberty" or "stigma." 441 U. S., at 425, 426. See, e. g., Addington v. Texas, supra (civil commitment); Woodby v. INS, 385 U. S., at 285 (deportation); Chaunt v. United States, 364 U. S. 350, 353 (1960) (denaturalization); *757 Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U. S. 118, 125, 159 (1943) (denaturalization).
This case is more than a loss of money this is a civil liberties violation of our rights to be a family and raise our children just because of my past from 17 years ago. One of the most fundamental rights is that of family
See Santosky V Kramer 466 U.S. (1982)
Last Term, in Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U. S. 18 (1981), this Court, by a 5-4 vote, held that the *753 Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause does not require the appointment of counsel for indigent parents in every parental status termination proceeding. The case casts light, however, on the two central questions here — whether process is constitutionally due a natural parent at a State's parental rights termination proceeding, and, if so, what process is due.
753
In Lassiter, it was "not disputed that state intervention to terminate the relationship between [a parent] and [the] child must be accomplished by procedures meeting the requisites of the Due Process Clause." Id., at 37 (first dissenting opinion); see id., at 24-32 (opinion of the Court); id., at 59-60 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). See also Little v. Streater, 452 U. S. 1, 13 (1981). The absence of dispute reflected this Court's historical recognition that freedom of personal choice in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U. S. 246, 255 (1978); Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U. S. 816, 845 (1977); Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality opinion); Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U. S. 632, 639-640 (1974); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 651-652 (1972); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 166 (1944); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 534-535 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399 (1923).
The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State. Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain a vital interest in preventing the irretrievable destruction of their family life. If anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have a more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. When the State moves to *754 destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures.[7]
754
In Lassiter, the Court and three dissenters agreed that the nature of the process due in parental rights termination proceedings turns on a balancing of the "three distinct factors" specified in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 335 (1976): the private interests affected by the proceeding; the risk of error created by the State's chosen procedure; and the countervailing governmental interest supporting use of the challenged procedure. See 452 U. S., at 27-31; id., at 37-48 (first dissenting opinion). But see id., at 59-60 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). While the respective Lassiter opinions disputed whether those factors should be weighed against a presumption disfavoring appointed counsel for one not threatened with loss of physical liberty, compare 452 U. S., at 31-32, with id., at 41, and n. 8 (first dissenting opinion), that concern is irrelevant here. Unlike the Court's right-to-counsel rulings, its decisions concerning constitutional burdens of proof have not turned on any presumption favoring any particular standard. To the contrary, the Court has engaged in a straightforward consideration of the factors identified in Eldridge to determine whether a particular standard of proof in a particular proceeding satisfies due process.
In Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S. 418 (1979), the Court, by a unanimous vote of the participating Justices, declared: "The function of a standard of proof, as that concept is embodied in the Due Process Clause and in the realm of fact finding, is to *755 `instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.' " Id., at 423, quoting In re Winship, 397 U.S 358, 370 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring). Addington teaches that, in any given proceeding, the minimum standard of proof tolerated by the due process requirement reflects not only the weight of the private and public interests affected, but also a societal judgment about how the risk of error should be distributed between the litigants.
755
Thus, while private parties may be interested intensely in a civil dispute over money damages, application of a "fair preponderance of the evidence" standard indicates both society's "minimal concern with the outcome," and a conclusion that the litigants should "share the risk of error in roughly equal fashion." 441 U. S., at 423. When the State brings a criminal action to deny a defendant liberty or life, however, "the interests of the defendant are of such magnitude that historically and without any explicit constitutional requirement they have been protected by standards of proof designed to exclude as nearly as possible the likelihood of an erroneous judgment." Ibid. The stringency of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard bespeaks the "weight and gravity" of the private interest affected, id., at 427, society's interest in avoiding erroneous convictions, and a judgment that those interests together require that "society impos[e] almost the entire risk of error upon itself." Id., at 424. See also In re Winship, 397 U. S., at 372 (Harlan, J., concurring).
The "minimum requirements [of procedural due process] being a matter of federal law, they are not diminished by the fact that the State may have specified its own procedures that it may deem adequate for determining the preconditions to adverse official action." Vitek v. Jones, 445 U. S. 480, 491 (1980). See also Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., ante, at 432. Moreover, the degree of proof required in a particular type of proceeding "is the kind of question which has *756 traditionally been left to the judiciary to resolve." Woodby v. INS, 385 U. S. 276, 284 (1966).[8] "In cases involving individual rights, whether criminal or civil, `[t]he standard of proof [at a minimum] reflects the value society places on individual liberty.' " Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S., at 425, quoting Tippett v. Maryland, 436 F. 2d 1153, 1166 (CA4 1971) (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part), cert. dism'd sub nom. Murel v. Baltimore City Criminal Court, 407 U. S. 355 (1972).
756
This Court has mandated an intermediate standard of proof — "clear and convincing evidence" — when the individual interests at stake in a state proceeding are both "particularly important" and "more substantial than mere loss of money." Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S., at 424. Notwithstanding "the state's `civil labels and good intentions,' " id., at 427, quoting In re Winship, 397 U. S., at 365-366, the Court has deemed this level of certainty necessary to preserve fundamental fairness in a variety of government-initiated proceedings that threaten the individual involved with "a significant deprivation of liberty" or "stigma." 441 U. S., at 425, 426. See, e. g., Addington v. Texas, supra (civil commitment); Woodby v. INS, 385 U. S., at 285 (deportation); Chaunt v. United States, 364 U. S. 350, 353 (1960) (denaturalization); *757 Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U. S. 118, 125, 159 (1943) (denaturalization). 757

In Lassiter, to be sure, the Court held that fundamental fairness may be maintained in parental rights termination proceedings even when some procedures are mandated only on a case-by-case basis, rather than through rules of general application. 452 U. S., at 31-32 (natural parent's right to court-appointed counsel should be determined by the trial court, subject to appellate review). But this Court never has approved case-by-case determination of the proper standard of proof for a given proceeding. Standards of proof, like other "procedural due process rules[,] are shaped by the risk of error inherent in the truth-finding process as applied to the generality of cases, not the rare exceptions." Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S., at 344 (emphasis added). Since the litigants and the factfinder must know at the outset of a given proceeding how the risk of error will be allocated, the standard of proof necessarily must be calibrated in advance. Retrospective case-by-case review cannot preserve fundamental fairness when a class of proceedings is governed by a constitutionally defective evidentiary standard.[9]
*758 III 758
In parental rights termination proceedings, the private interest affected is commanding; the risk of error from using a preponderance standard is substantial; and the countervailing governmental interest favoring that standard is comparatively slight. Evaluation of the three Eldridge factors compels the conclusion that use of a "fair preponderance of the evidence" standard in such proceedings is inconsistent with due process.
A
"The extent to which procedural due process must be afforded the recipient is influenced by the extent to which he may be `condemned to suffer grievous loss.' " Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254. 262-263 (1970), quoting Joint Anti Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 123, 168 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). Whether the loss threatened by a particular type of proceeding is sufficiently grave to warrant more than average certainty on the part of the factfinder turns on both the nature of the private interest threatened and the permanency of the threatened loss.
Lassiter declared it "plain beyond the need for multiple citation" that a natural parent's "desire for and right to `the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children' " is an interest far more precious than any property *759 right. 452 U. S., at 27, quoting Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S., at 651. When the State initiates a parental rights termination proceeding, it seeks not merely to infringe that fundamental liberty interest, but to end it. "If the State prevails, it will have worked a unique kind of deprivation. . . . A parent's interest in the accuracy and justice of the decision to terminate his or her parental status is, therefore, a commanding one." 452 U. S., at 27.
759
In government-initiated proceedings to determine juvenile delinquency, In re Winship, supra; civil commitment, Addington v. Texas, supra; deportation, Woodby v. INS, supra; and denaturalization, Chaunt v. United States, supra, and Schneiderman v. United States, supra, this Court has identified losses of individual liberty sufficiently serious to warrant imposition of an elevated burden of proof. Yet juvenile delinquency adjudications, civil commitment, deportation, and denaturalization, at least to a degree, are all reversible official actions. Once affirmed on appeal, a New York decision terminating parental rights is final and irrevocable. See n. 1, supra. Few forms of state action are both so severe and so irreversible.
Thus, the first Eldridge factor — the private interest affected — weighs heavily against use of the preponderance standard at a state-initiated permanent neglect proceeding. We do not deny that the child and his foster parents are also deeply interested in the outcome of that contest. But at the factfinding stage of the New York proceeding, the focus emphatically is not on them.
The factfinding does not purport — and is not intended — to balance the child's interest in a normal family home against the parents' interest in raising the child. Nor does it purport to determine whether the natural parents or the foster parents would provide the better home. Rather, the factfinding hearing pits the State directly against the parents. The State alleges that the natural parents are at fault. Fam. Ct. Act § 614.1.(d). The questions disputed and decided are *760 what the State did — "made diligent efforts," § 614.1.(c) — and what the natural parents did not do — "maintain contact with or plan for the future of the child." § 614.1.(d). The State marshals an array of public resources to prove its case and disprove the parents' case. Victory by the State not only makes termination of parental rights possible; it entails a judicial determination that the parents are unfit to raise their own children.[10]
760
At the factfinding, the State cannot presume that a child and his parents are adversaries. After the State has established parental unfitness at that initial proceeding, the court may assume at the dispositional stage that the interests of the child and the natural parents do diverge. See Fam. Ct. Act § 631 (judge shall make his order "solely on the basis of the best interests of the child," and thus has no obligation to consider the natural parents' rights in selecting dispositional alternatives). But until the State proves parental unfitness, the child and his parents share a vital interest in preventing erroneous termination of their natural relationship.[11] Thus, *761 at the factfinding, the interests of the child and his natural parents coincide to favor use of error-reducing procedures.
761
However substantial the foster parents' interests may be, cf. Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U. S., at 845-847, they are not implicated directly in the factfinding stage of a state-initiated permanent neglect proceeding against the natural parents. If authorized, the foster parents may pit their interests directly against those of the natural parents by initiating their own permanent neglect proceeding. Fam. Ct. Act § 1055(d); Soc. Serv. Law §§ 384-6.3(b), 392.7.(c). Alternatively, the foster parents can make their case for custody at the dispositional stage of a state-initiated proceeding, where the judge already has decided the issue of permanent neglect and is focusing on the placement that would serve the child's best interests. Fam. Ct. Act §§ 623, 631. For the foster parents, the State's failure to prove permanent neglect may prolong the delay and uncertainty until their foster child is freed for adoption. But for the natural parents, a finding of permanent neglect can cut off forever their rights in their child. Given this disparity of consequence, we have no difficulty finding that the balance of private interests strongly favors heightened procedural protections.
B
Under Mathews v. Eldridge, we next must consider both the risk of erroneous deprivation of private interestsmresulting from use of a "fair preponderance" standard and the likelihood that a higher evidentiary standard would reduce that risk. See 424 U. S., at 335. Since the factfinding phase of a permanent neglect proceeding is an adversary contest between the State and the natural parents, the relevant question is whether a preponderance standard fairly allocates the risk of an erroneous factfinding between these two parties. *762 In New York, the factfinding stage of a state-initiated permanent neglect proceeding bears many of the indicia of a criminal trial. Cf. Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U. S., at 42-44 (first dissenting opinion); Meltzer v. C. Buck LeCraw & Co., 402 U. S. 954, 959 (1971) (Black, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). See also dissenting opinion, post, at 777-779 (describing procedures employed at factfinding proceeding). The Commissioner of Social Services charges the parents with permanent neglect. They are served by summons. Fam. Ct. Act §§ 614, 616, 617. The factfinding hearing is conducted pursuant to formal rules of evidence. § 624. The State, the parents, and the child are all represented by counsel. §§ 249, 262. The State seeks to establish a series of historical facts about the intensity of its agency's efforts to reunite the family, the infrequency and insubstantiality of the parents' contacts with their child, and the parents' inability or unwillingness to formulate a plan for the child's future. The attorneys submit documentary evidence, and call witnesses who are subject to cross-examination. Based on all the evidence, the judge then determines whether the State has proved the statutory elements of permanent neglect by a fair preponderance of the evidence. § 622.
762
At such a proceeding, numerous factors combine to magnify the risk of erroneous factfinding. Permanent neglect proceedings employ imprecise substantive standards that leave determinations unusually open to the subjective values of the judge. See Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U. S., at 835, n. 36. In appraising the nature and quality of a complex series of encounters among the agency, the parents, and the child, the court possesses unusual discretion to underweigh probative facts that might favor the parent.[12] *763 Because parents subject to termination proceedings are often poor, uneducated, or members of minority groups, id., at 833-835, such proceedings are often vulnerable to judgments based on cultural or class bias.
763
The State's ability to assemble its case almost inevitably dwarfs the parents' ability to mount a defense. No predetermined limits restrict the sums an agency may spend in prosecuting a given termination proceeding. The State's attorney usually will be expert on the issues contested and the procedures employed at the factfinding hearing, and enjoys full access to all public records concerning the family. The State may call on experts in family relations, psychology, and medicine to bolster its case. Furthermore, the primary witnesses at the hearing will be the agency's own professional caseworkers whom the State has empowered both to investigate the family situation and to testify against the parents. Indeed, because the child is already in agency custody, the State even has the power to shape the historical events that form the basis for termination.[13]
*764 The disparity between the adversaries' litigation resources is matched by a striking asymmetry in their litigation options. Unlike criminal defendants, natural parents have no "double jeopardy" defense against repeated state termination efforts. If the State initially fails to win termination, as New York did here, see n. 4, supra, it always can try once again to cut off the parents' rights after gathering more or better evidence. Yet even when the parents have attained the level of fitness required by the State, they have no similar means by which they can forestall future termination efforts.
764
Coupled with a "fair preponderance of the evidence" standard, these factors create a significant prospect of erroneous termination. A standard of proof that by its very terms demands consideration of the quantity, rather than the quality, of the evidence may misdirect the factfinder in the marginal case. See In re Winship, 397 U. S., at 371, n. 3 (Harlan, J., concurring). Given the weight of the private interests at stake, the social cost of even occasional error is sizable.
Raising the standard of proof would have both practical and symbolic consequences. Cf. Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S., at 426. The Court has long considered the heightened standard of proof used in criminal prosecutions to be "a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error." In re Winship, 397 U. S., at 363. An elevated standard of proof in a parental rights termination proceeding would alleviate "the possible risk that a factfinder might decide to [deprive] an individual based solely on a few isolated instances of unusual conduct [or] . . . idiosyncratic behavior." Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S., at 427. "Increasing the burden of proof is one way to impress the factfinder with the importance *765 of the decision and thereby perhaps to reduce the chances that inappropriate" terminations will be ordered. Ibid.
765
The Appellate Division approved New York's preponderance standard on the ground that it properly "balanced rights possessed by the child . . . with those of the natural parents. . . ." 75 App. Div. 2d, at 910, 427 N. Y. S. 2d, at 320. By so saying, the court suggested that a preponderance standard properly allocates the risk of error between the parents and the child.[14] That view is fundamentally mistaken.
The court's theory assumes that termination of the natural parents' rights invariably will benefit the child.[15] Yet we have noted above that the parents and the child share an interest in avoiding erroneous termination. Even accepting the court's assumption, we cannot agree with its conclusion that a preponderance standard fairly distributes the risk of error between parent and child. Use of that standard reflects the judgment that society is nearly neutral between erroneous termination of parental rights and erroneous failure to terminate those rights. Cf. In re Winship, 397 U. S., at 371 (Harlan, J., concurring). For the child, the likely consequence of an erroneous failure to terminate is preservation of *766 an uneasy status quo.[16] For the natural parents, however, the consequence of an erroneous termination is the unnecessary destruction of their natural family. A standard that allocates the risk of error nearly equally between those two outcomes does not reflect properly their relative severity.
766
C
Two state interests are at stake in parental rights termination proceedings — a parens patriae interest in preserving and promoting the welfare of the child and a fiscal and administrative interest in reducing the cost and burden of such proceedings. A standard of proof more strict than preponderance of the evidence is consistent with both interests.
"Since the State has an urgent interest in the welfare of the child, it shares the parent's interest in an accurate and just decision" at the factfinding proceeding. Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U. S., at 27. As parens patriae, the State's goal is to provide the child with a permanent home. See Soc. Serv. Law § 384-b.1.(a)(i)(statement of legislative findings and intent). Yet while there is still reason to believe that positive, nurturing parent-child relationships exist, the parens patriae interest favors preservation, not *767 severance, of natural familial bonds.[17] § 384-b.1.(a)(ii). "[T]he State registers no gain towards its declared goals when it separates children from the custody of fit parents." Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S., at 652.
767
The State's interest in finding the child an alternative permanent home arises only "when it is clear that the natural parent cannot or will not provide a normal family home for the child." Soc. Serv. Law § 384-b.1.(a)(iv) (emphasis added). At the factfinding, that goal is served by procedures that promote an accurate determination of whether the natural parents can and will provide a normal home.
Unlike a constitutional requirement of hearings, see, e. g., Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S., at 347, or court-appointed counsel, a stricter standard of proof would reduce factual error without imposing substantial fiscal burdens upon the State. As we have observed, 35 States already have adopted a higher standard by statute or court decision without apparent effect on the speed, form, or cost of their factfinding proceedings. See n. 3, supra.
Nor would an elevated standard of proof create any real administrative burdens for the State's factfinders. New York Family Court judges already are familiar with a higher evidentiary standard in other parental rights termination proceedings not involving permanent neglect. See Soc. Serv. Law §§ 384-b.3.(g), 384-b.4.(c), and 384-b.4.(e) (requiring "clear and convincing proof" before parental rights may be terminated for reasons of mental illness and mental retardation or severe and repeated child abuse). New York also demands at least clear and convincing evidence in proceedings of far less moment than parental rights termination proceedings. See, e. g., N. Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 227.1 (McKinney Supp. 1981) (requiring the State to prove traffic *768 infractions by "clear and convincing evidence") and In re Rosenthal v. Hartnett, 36 N. Y. 2d 269, 326 N. E. 2d 811 (1975); see also Ross v. Food Specialties, Inc., 6 N. Y. 2d 336, 341, 160 N. E. 2d 618, 620 (1959) (requiring "clear, positive and convincing evidence" for contract reformation). We cannot believe that it would burden the State unduly to require that its factfinders have the same factual certainty when terminating the parent-child relationship as they must have to suspend a driver's license.
768
Just because DSS doesn't feel the living situation that my family has isn't ideal doesn't prove any kind of danger either. The question could be raised as to at what point would it not be neglect for me to live with my family. God forbid something happened to my wife, but for arguments sake lets just look at it from a logical stand point. If they haven't given any evidence to the other claimed facts and there whole Argument is just because I am in the house it constitutes neglect which is what it boils down too. Then let's just say that if my wife was to pass away in her sleep and I was to wake up and find that she had died then according to there Argument I have neglected my kids because at that point I would be alone. So what would be my only course of action to not neglect my children. Turn them over to DSS because my wife died, leave the house, or some other action. So that way I would not neglect my children. But, if I left the children there alone so I would not be alone then that would be abuse so there whole argument is flawed. The law is based on logic. Every case I have read on this type of case has never been solely because a sex offender was in the home. It was more than that. There were other abuses than that.
The order of protection is a violation of my fundamental liberty as a parent to both of the children. Santosky V Kramer 466 U.S. (1982)
The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State. Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain a vital interest in preventing the irretrievable destruction of their family life. If anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have a more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. When the State moves to *754 destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures.[7]
754
Being the fact that UCDSS did not properly do there job but just jumped the gun so to speak and acted rash with out all the facts. I have not been able to be a father to both of our children as I have been for the past 2 and half to four years depending on which child. When it is stated that the court is acting in what is the best interest for the children then how can that be with this situation being a violation if my children's 1st amendment right to free association and the due process clause of the 14th amendment. (Webster V. Ryan 189 Misc.2d 86 (2001) 729 N.Y.S.2d 315)
Lee Everett has stated to his attorney on a couple of occasions that he wants his dad home, which he does call me dad. That has always been his choice. Jennifer Allen was given releases to talk to Amy Snyder about his progress and she has refused to so. Also Melissa Roche was told by the legal department to not send us any releases for some reason which she was trying to contact Amy Snyder. Amy Snyder has stated to us that since I have come into Lee's life he has greatly improved in school. Since he has stated that to his attorney Mr. Shelton and been denied access to me as his father. And, the fact that Mrs Joern stated in court that he is not my biological son that he doesn't need to talk to me just makes me wonder if she under stands what it means to be a family. As stated in article that was written about another judge this is what is quoted about Mrs Joern.
Joern is wary of anyone who puts an ideology over being willing to take each case in context. “I advocate for children,” she said firmly, and for her that means keeping families intact whenever that's safe and possible. As long as both parents are fit and there's not abuse, Joern said, “Unilaterally suspending someone's contact with their child for months on end is so unfair to the child, and does not have a good outcome.”
http://metroland.net/back_issues/vol_27_no32/newsfront.html
But, in this case she has argued to keep me from my children with a clear lack of evidence before the case even started so is this true about this case. My daughter has to be lied to all the time by family members and told daddy is at work cause I am not there. So who protects my family from this clear miscarriage of justice.
With out the proper procedures followed then what justice is there. I am asking this court to handle these issues.
The issue of jurisdiction
Based on the fact that the neglect petition is a fraudulent document by every legal standard. There has not been a sworn affidavit that went with it. For with that then UCDSS would be held to account for perjury if it was falsified. Without the evidence that is stated as fact the appeals court in the matter of Jones V. Jones states it must be dismissed if the statutory requirements are not met.
2. The violation of competent council.
If my lawyer can not answer the question of whether it is legal or not then there is a problem. And, if he will not do what I have been asking him to do then he doesn't have my family or my best interest in mind.
3. The civil rights violations of everyone in my family.
4. I am asking the court to dismiss the case based on the fact that there is a jurisdictional issue.
In closing your Honor I have reviewed this case with multiple attorneys. Every attorney has said that DSS staff involved in this case are out of line.
I have gone into debt to family members to be able to find an attorney to no avail. Because, I don't have the access to the kind of money that every one needs at this time. So I am asking kindly for the court to review this matter
This letter/motion has been served to every attorney involved in this case by certified mail/return receipt. It has also been faxed to the Ulster County Family Court with the original mailed to the Ulster County Family Court certified mail/return receipt.

Ulster County Family Court
16 Lucas Avenue
Kingston NY 12401
845-340-3400
Fax Number 845-340-3626
___________________________________________

Monday, July 4, 2011

What you don’t know will hurt you!




I was surprised (but not surprised), when I saw this picture that came from a grocery store in Harrisburg, PA. Why is it that anything that has questions of possible harmful side affects it is always given for free. Nothing is free in this world, everything cost in someway, shape, or form. All you have to do is be willing to follow the evidence where it leads.

Some people may remember on the back of a tube of fluoride toothpaste reading; “If children under the age of 6 swallow more than a pea size amount call poison control. Well that has been changed in the years. Not because fluoride is safe or good for your teeth. It is a hazardous waste by product from the fertilizer, aluminum, and nuclear industries and others.

Just the nuclear industry is enough to cause concern. Back in November of 2010 it came out about the cover up by the Texas Government on radioactivity in the water supply. The question isn’t where did the radioactivity come from. It is not in the reservoirs its only in the water that is in the pipes them selves which means it has be coming from the stuff that is added to the water. This was shown by an investigation that was done by CBS KHOU.

So is it any surprise that cancer rates have increased over the past 100 years. There have been many studies that show increases in bone cancer in boys when fluoride is given. EPA scientist have signed petitions and given them to congress for the removale of sodium fluoride from the water supply. Congress didn't listen! Not counting the studies given that show it also lowers IQ. If you don't think it lowers IQ then why did the German Nazi's use it on the Jews?( Ref. book: "The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben" by Joseph Borkin .) Also, the Russians use Sodium Fluoride on there prisoners and admit what it is for. Both of these examples admit it was used to make the perspective prisoners sterile and docile.

If you don't think those same things are happing to us just look at the numbers on male sperm count, which is down by a large percentage; look also at how many women can't have children because they are barren, without some kind of fertility drug or doctor.

As I heard Alex Jones say one day, "It makes as much sense to ingest sodium fluoride for you teeth as it does to drink sun block to protect your skin."

The American Dental Association has stated that you shouldn't use fluoride containing products on children less than 5 years old.
Not to mention the Federal Government has just recently admitted that our country has a problem with the increase in dental fluorosis.

So be sure that you do the research on things before you just jump on the "free" item because our health is affected.

Brian Robertson
www.thefinalstage.info

Monday, May 2, 2011

Bin Laden Dead, Show Us The Body!

Well let's see the body before I believe it. We are told he was behind 911 but FBI doesn't say that. http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden Just because they say it doesn't make it so. Show the body. Obama would use this to get political points. According to CBS he was getting dialysis treatment from our government in dubia. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/28/eveningnews/main325887.shtml Fox news said that anwar aw-alaki the leader of al-quiada today was at the pentagon after 911 http://www.google.com/m/url?client=safari&ei=JCm-TcjbLdvllQf2077ZAg&hl=en&oe=UTF-8&q=http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20/al-qaeda-terror-leader-dined-pentagon-months/&ved=0CBoQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNHTJultY8DKGpuUZUJDPQktZPsvoA So just because they say he's dead doesnt make it so. Show us a body. And don't forget our government is funding al Qaeda in Libya now. http://www.infowars.com/u-s-government-backs-libyan-al-qaeda-while-hyping-terror-attacks-inside-u-s/


Brian Robertson
www.thefinalstage.info

Saturday, April 23, 2011

DHS Launches New Alert System Designed to Terrorize Public

Kurt Nimmo & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
April 21, 2011

In order to keep the phony war on manufactured terrorism in your face 24-7, the government has trashed its old and absurd color-coded system in favor of a new and more obnoxious system.

A more detailed explanation by bureaucrat Napolitano can be viewed here.

“The terrorist threat facing our country has evolved significantly over the past ten years,” said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, regardless of the fact that there has not been a staged terror attack since cave Muslims did or didn’t slam airliners into skyscrapers and presumably the most defended building on earth.

As part of the propaganda effort, Napolitano and the DHS claim attacks have been either disrupted or uncovered in the past few years, including a cartoonish attempt by a supposed al-Qaeda affiliate in Yemen to detonate toner cartridges packed with explosives aboard U.S.-bound cargo planes.

Most of the “uncovered” terror plots were designed by the FBI and involved clueless and often mentally deficient patsies. As for the laughable toner terror plot, it turns out there were no UPS or DHL cargo flights from Yemen within a 48 hour period prior to the supposed terror attack. The government claimed CIA operative Anwar al-Awlaki was behind the bombings. Mr. al-Awlaki was at one time a preferred dinner guest at the Pentagon.

Moreover, a number of the supposed hijackers listed their addresses on drivers licenses and car registrations as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida, and others received instruction at the Air War College in Montgomery, Alabama, and at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. Of course, this puzzling information was long ago excised from the official 9/11 fairy tale and the Pentagon admission that Atta and crew were under its wing has been memory holed.

Fed goons harass Infowars.com journalists for the crime of photographing the private Federal Reserve.

According to officialdom, the color-coded alert system was dumped because it didn’t provide enough information on supposed threats. Under the new system, an “elevated” threat will include a “credible” threat of terrorism while an “imminent” threat would warn of a “credible, specific and impending threat,” according to DHS bureaucrats.

The new system, called the National Terrorism Advisory System, is necessary according to Napolitano because the old color-coded system did not communicate enough fear-based information. “What was the threat? What were you supposed to do? Where were you supposed to go to get up-to-date information?” In addition, the older system “had no natural way to be reduced if a threat dissipated or was removed,” she explained.

In addition to ferreting out exaggerated and fictional threats to the corporate media – threats easily ignored under the old system – the new system will feed them to Facebook and Twitter as well. Government engineered fear-mongering will soon invade social networks and become more personalized.

Instructing the cops how to profile citizens as terrorists.

Napolitano also announced a new DHS web page. According to the page, the National Terrorism Advisory System, or NTAS, “recognizes that Americans all share responsibility for the nation’s security, and should always be aware of the heightened risk of terrorist attack in the United States and what they should do.”

In other words, according to the government, it is your responsibility to be in a heightened state of anxiety and fear over non-existent terrorists who hate us for our freedom and are at this very moment preparing to strike under the tutelage of the FBI and its legion of informers and agents provocateurs.
A more detailed explanation by bureaucrat Napolitano can be viewed here.

“The terrorist threat facing our country has evolved significantly over the past ten years,” said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, regardless of the fact that there has not been a staged terror attack since cave Muslims did or didn’t slam airliners into skyscrapers and presumably the most defended building on earth.

As part of the propaganda effort, Napolitano and the DHS claim attacks have been either disrupted or uncovered in the past few years, including a cartoonish attempt by a supposed al-Qaeda affiliate in Yemen to detonate toner cartridges packed with explosives aboard U.S.-bound cargo planes.

According to officialdom, the color-coded alert system was dumped because it didn’t provide enough information on supposed threats. Under the new system, an “elevated” threat will include a “credible” threat of terrorism while an “imminent” threat would warn of a “credible, specific and impending threat,” according to DHS bureaucrats.

The new system, called the National Terrorism Advisory System, is necessary according to Napolitano because the old color-coded system did not communicate enough fear-based information. “What was the threat? What were you supposed to do? Where were you supposed to go to get up-to-date information?” In addition, the older system “had no natural way to be reduced if a threat dissipated or was removed,” she explained.

In addition to ferreting out exaggerated and fictional threats to the corporate media – threats easily ignored under the old system – the new system will feed them to Facebook and Twitter as well. Government engineered fear-mongering will soon invade social networks and become more personalized.

Instructing the cops how to profile citizens as terrorists.

Napolitano also announced a new DHS web page. According to the page, the National Terrorism Advisory System, or NTAS, “recognizes that Americans all share responsibility for the nation’s security, and should always be aware of the heightened risk of terrorist attack in the United States and what they should do.”

In other words, according to the government, it is your responsibility to be in a heightened state of anxiety and fear over non-existent terrorists who hate us for our freedom and are at this very moment preparing to strike under the tutelage of the FBI and its legion of informers and agents provocateurs.

The DHS began researching more effective ways to induce irrational fear back in 2003. Steve Cooper, chief information officer of the Homeland Security Department, said during a keynote address at the Federal Office Systems Exhibition that the government was exploring how to exploit wireless technology and disseminate fear-based propaganda. “Our goal is to make it work all the time,” he said. “We want to be faster, better, cheaper.”

A 2003 beta test in Virginia included sending local residents “free subscriptions to emergency alerts, which are delivered to personal digital assistants or mobile phones,” wrote Elsa Wenzel of PCWorld. The technology was designed to tailor messages to specific zip codes, alerting residents to supposed dangers – white al-Qaeda lurking about with cameras, for instance (see the above cop training video) – in their own neighborhoods.

The new DHS system reveals a larger plan by the government to install a sprawling fear-based electronic matrix that sends text messages over our wireless devices and posts terror warnings using the full range of social media, including microblogging services, Facebook and Twitter instant messages.

In the not too distant future, we can expect endlessly issued and fatuous terror alerts to be accompanied by increased presence of goons in full black-clad regalia of the militarized police state at public buildings and the local mall as the control grid expands from the nation’s airports and travel infrastructure to local neighborhoods. Intrusive pat-downs and mobile naked body scanners at the mall are on the agenda in the months ahead.

The goal of endless harebrained terror alerts is to get us acclimated to the presence of cops and a network of tattletales, snoops and informers serving the larger Stasi-state America has become.



Brian Robertson
www.thefinalstage.info

Friday, March 11, 2011

The hearings that you didn't hear about

Why is we that we have a President that caters to the muslims. He absolutely will not discuss anything that gives a negative light on Islam.
While Obama was talking about how they are going to discuss school bullying and other things he will not touch the term or subject of radical Islam. I ask you why is this.
This subject is the one thing that isn't discussed by the government. They pushed it down our throats after 9/11 for a few years but then only throw up occasional mentions of some Al-Qaida leader.
The lie of radical islam has a lot lies in it covered up with some truth.The biggest lie is that it is against the United States. Have you ever heard the old saying "you don't bite the hand that feeds you."
Now with our government still funding these organizations they do not want no more attention brought to it than possible.
CIA funds ISI and you just follow that money and even today it still goes to Al-Qaeda.
We should quit falling for the lies of Obama. Turn the televisions off and start doing our own research. At least then you will get more truth than you will get listening to him and his puppet news networks.

Brian Robertson

Monday, January 31, 2011

Kill Switch: Obama Administration Fears Egypt-Style Revolt In U.S.

http://www.infowars.com/kill-switch-obama-administration-fears-egypt-style-revolt-in-u-s/

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
January 31, 2011

image

The Obama administration is busy attempting to pass legislation that would give the President a kill switch for the Internet in the United States while at the same time decrying Egyptian authorities for shutting down the Internet in a bid to deflate the unfolding revolution against Hosni Mubarak. The reason is simple – the government fears an Egypt-style revolt occurring in the U.S. and wants to block access to the world wide web if and when it happens.

Chicago radio host and occasional Alex Jones Show guest Mancow Muller called it right during an appearance on Mike Huckabee’s show this weekend.

“It’s in all the newspapers, ‘Ohblahblah’, we’ve got to free up Twitter, we’ve got to free up the Internet and Facebook for these poor Egyptians – this is the President that let Wikileaks and all of this stuff happen,” said Mancow.

“They create the problems and we react to fear — the the four letter f-word that controls the masses and they offer the solution, “they” being the government. This is the President that wants the kill switch for the Internet….he wants a kill switch.”

“They fear….social networking, Twitter, Facebook, all of this stuff, but oh, no, we must have it in Egypt, but we don’t want to have it in America.”

Mancow also pointed out how Egyptians were rioting over an economic fallout that has led to crippling tax hikes, wage reductions and spiraling food prices, a similar situation to what is unfolding in America, making reference to how Illinois state authorities recently agreed to hike taxesby a whopping 66 percent.

As we have illustrated, despite invoking supposedly genuine security concerns, the only time governments have resorted to shutting down the world wide web is when they feel the need to crush legitimate dissent against the state.

Indeed, at the height of the Stuxnet worm attack, the crisis was cited as another reason why cybersecurity legislation giving government control of the Internet was necessary. It later emerged that the Stuxnet virus itself was created by the US and Israel to target Iran’s nuclear program.

The Communist Chinese government is now blocking searches for the word “Egypt” on social networking websites in China, reflecting “the government’s fears that the protests in Egypt could whip up unrest in China.”

Sina.com public relations officer Ma Taotao confirms that Chinese searches for Egypt are blocked on its instant messaging site, Sina Weibo.

Ma says the company itself did not make the decision, but is only following the “relevant Chinese laws and regulations.” He gives no details and does not say which government department is responsible. He says he does not know how long the restriction will be in force.

The authoritarian Chinese government routinely blocks Internet access when it wishes to derail organized protests and marches, a telling lesson for Americans given the fact that cybersecurity guru Senator Joseph Lieberman openly admitted that the goal of the new kill switch in the U.S. was to mimic the Chinese system of Internet censorship.

“Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,” Lieberman told CNN’s Candy Crowley last year.

However, China’s “war” is not against foreign terrorists or hackers, it’s against people who dare to use the Internet to express dissent against government atrocities or corruption. China’s system of Internet policing is about crushing freedom of speech during times of political upheaval and has nothing to do with legitimate security concerns.

It’s a system concentrated around state oppression of any individual or group that seeks to use the Internet to draw attention to political causes frowned upon by the authorities.

China has exercised its power to shut down the Internet, something that Lieberman wants to introduce in the U.S., at politically sensitive times in order to stem the flow of information about government abuse of its citizens. During the anti-government riots which occurred in July 2009, the Chinese government completely shut down the Internet across the entire northwestern region of Xinjiang for days. In several regions, the authorities completely cut off the Internet for nearly a year. Major news and discussion portals used by the Muslim Uighurs in the area remain blocked. Similarly, Internet access in parts of Tibet is routinely restricted as part of government efforts to pre-empt and neutralize unrest.

Twitter, Facebook and Youtube are all banned in China and even sanitized government approved versions of these websites are now being shut down for long periods of time so that they can “remove all politically sensitive content under orders from Chinese internet authorities”.

Web censorship in China intensified after a micro-blogger began to expose the fact that many government officials, executives and judges had lied about obtaining degrees from prestigious universities. The government responded to the embarrassment by ordering websites to temporarily go into “maintenance” mode while they removed the pertinent material. What this has to do with fighting a “war,” as Lieberman claims, is anyone’s guess.

The Chinese system that Lieberman wants to bring to the United States is not only about censoring material critical of the state, it’s about identifying those who post it and thereby creating a chilling atmosphere that discourages others from exercising free speech in fear that they might be the next victims of the thought police. News websites in China now require users to register their true identitiesin order to leave comments.

This move towards abolishing Internet anonymity and creating a virtual ID card is a key centerpiece of Lieberman’s cybersecurity agenda.

This strategy revolves around, “The creation of a system for identity management that would allow citizens to use additional authentication techniques, such as physical tokens or modules on mobile phones, to verify who they are before buying things online or accessing such sensitive information as health or banking records.”

Only with this government-issued “token” will Internet users be allowed to “able to move from website to website,” a system not too far removed from what China proposed and rejected for being too authoritarian.

The examples of Egypt and China in shutting down Internet access to quell dissent against the state tell us everything we need to know about the motivations behind this odious policy and why it has no place in America, a supposedly free country.

While Obama criticizes Egyptian authorities for shutting down web access to disrupt protesters, his own administration prepares to launch a fresh attempt at instituting the exact same powers in America, which as recent history clearly demonstrates, represent tools for tyrannical regimes who wish to silence legitimate political opposition.