01/14/09 Inside Insight Show RNC Arrests-Exposing Dual Interests
Host Bob Zick and Nancy Lazaryan show how ignorant or far behind our leaders are on what's really going on.  In this show they expose the conflicts of interest between lawyers and politicians.  Sen Latz, "I take a few oaths. I take an oath to the courts as part of my law license and am an officer of the court.  I also take an oath to the constitution as part of my elected office and I have an obligation to my clients."  Lawyers are officers of the court, they take an oath to the court and so a politician that is also a lawyer serves in more than one branch of our government and their oaths conflict with each other and opens the door to special interest legislation for our judicial branch to where "We the People" aren't being represented and nobody is being held accountable.

Nancy also gives Heffelfinger, Chair of the RNC report, something to think about during the press conference for the RNC report, http://stpaul.gov/index.asp?NID=2901. 

Nancy working around road blocks at the capitol with Mee Moa's assistant trying to set up a meeting.

Nancy now getting police escorts when she arrives at the capitol with camera.

Enjoy the show, very educational.
 

11/30/08 Inside Insight Show RNC Convention
Reporter getting arrested at RNC convention following up with county prosecutor on the charges of unlawful assembly.
   

To leave a comment about this topic you can click here

8/27/08 Protesters At DNC Get Trapped By Police

8/20/08 Is The Gov Bubble Ready For A Correction? Quick, Let's Bail It Out!
We are working towards a stewardship with the American People to restore the constitution, enact a consumer bill of rights, provided our workers a great place to work with better benefits and tax savings, secure our healthcare with a patience bill of rights, and restore the presumption of innocence back into our courtrooms for all our future generations by putting the peoples interests and rights ahead of corporate and governmental interests! 

As a community it is up to us to provide a healthy environment for our children and provide opportunities for them with a solid educational background or trade skills and to provide help for others to be or become more self sufficient and contributing members of society and right now is not the time to cut those areas of funding.  In fact we need to increase those areas of funding and consider educating our future generations as an investment into a skilled labor force that our businesses can pull from. 

In regards to our economy, we are experiencing corrections in many markets, most noticeably the devaluation of our homes in the real-estate market, and some of us have just barely broken even from Y2K bubble.  Combined with scandals like Enron, excessive corporate mergers and stealing of public assets along with labor strikes combined with unsecured employee pensions and retirement dates that are pushing out along with increased inflation that hasn't kept up with our raises, we should be concerned people.  And, when they say at least Wall Street is stable.  It's like ya that old wobbly roller coaster is something we really want to ride or count on.  

Furthermore, consumers and the American people have been strapped with increased fuel costs due to the extra demand from the war in Iraq which has inadvertently affected sale prices and increased costs across all consumer goods and when we combine these troubles with interest rates at all-time lows, affecting how fast money is generated and unemployment rates raising even though we have many troops overseas that will affect the rate even worse when they come home and on to top of all that, our governments, federally all the way down to the local level are being shell gamed into higher property taxes and social program taxes on the people. These social programs have become accustomed to exponential growth during the inflationary period not too long ago which has created an over-inflated expansionary budget that the governments jumped on and haven't been very successful at getting off of either. 

Just like our economy experiences corrections all the time and it's only plausible that we aren't also in for a governmental correction as well.  Corrections like separating politicians and judges from working together but instead make the judges act more like the compiler of the codes of law and maintaining the proper hierarchies of the fed constitution, the state constitution, state statutes and city ordinances.  In other words, they need to work against each other and not together when deciding or interpreting new laws.  The Judiciary should not be allowed to conduct a biased study relating to family law other than to to check the validity of our laws and natural laws.

We need to revamp our social needs and priorities in spending.  Police, Fire, Emergency, Medical Care, Transportation, Judiciary and Education are essential items to our governmental purpose and when a family or a citizen falls to meet their essential needs, it's societies fault and we need to pick them back up and get them the help they need.  Likewise, when when we fail to provide just the basic opportunities like education and healthcare equally for everyone and an individual fails to take advantage of it it's their fault as citizens.

To leave a comment about this topic you can click here

8/5/08 Mary Winkler Walks

To leave a comment about this topic you can click here

7/29/08 The CPS Can Come Into Your Home And Take Your Children For Any Reason They Want
No Warrant, No Judges Signature, No Evidence of a crime, nothing is needed for the CPS to come into you home and take your children except an allegation.  To fight a bogus allegation, an innocent parent will certainly face a lot of legal headaches and will be lucky to survive.  A family from Texas wanted to point out that what the CPS did to them can also happen to any parent it pleases and if you don't cooperate they will just assume you are guilty.
 

To leave a comment about this topic you can click here

7/29/08 Search And Seizure-Border Patrol Gone Wild
Watch these Videos carefully. The officer never asks the passenger about immigration. He only demands that he exits the car and to stop filming so they can search the car. This checkpoint is about 60 miles from the border. To go from Phoenix AZ to LA he hit 5 checkpoints. These "Immigration checkpoints" and Martial Law checkpoints continue to pop up. New Orleans, DC, Chicago......Is your neighborhood next? Notice in this video that the border patrol NEVER asks him a question other than to stop filming him and to ALLOW him to search him by exiting the vehicle. This whole time the "officer" keeps using circular logic to try and trick the passenger to exit the vehicle. The reasonable suspicion that he states is also circular logic. You're suspicious because your evading questioning..Then that means that you have the right to search everyone that questions you? No officer Villanueva, that's not how it works

No you do not have the right to touch the vehicle. No you do not have the right to open the door of a vehicle. No you do not have the right to remove someone from the car without grounds. There was a lot that happened after the camera was turned off. The officer admitted that he knew it was private property on film right before it turns off. After this they continued to try and trick them to allow them to search the car. He asked the officer "What's the purpose of the stop" to which he replied "Immigration checkpoint".. So why do they have drug dogs and want to search the car? Can dogs smell illegal aliens? Can anyone else see right through this?


 

7/29/08 House Judiciary Hearing on Executive Powers
Rep. Rep Dennis Kucinich at the hearing and before hearing on CSPAN
 
Rep. Steve King's 

Rep. Jerrold Nadler

Bruce Fein

Vincent Bugliosi Prosecutor of Charles Manson


Lamar Smith

Robert Wexler
 

To leave a comment about this topic you can click here

7/29/08 Fox News Busted?  Come On, Really?
The O'Really Factor takes a new meaning so don't even try to say you are surprised by any of this but it's official, Fox News gets their talking points from the White House for their prime-time propaganda machine.

To leave a comment about this topic you can click here

7/24/08 ACLU MN Protects 1st Amendment Right Against Retaliation
St. Paul, MN - The ACLU-MN filed an Amicus Curiae brief on behalf of Mr. James Stengrim, in support of his First Amendment rights. Mr. Stengrim was sued by the Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District, a local government entity, for expressing an opinion critical of the District's flood control plans. Mr. Stengrim and other land owners opposing the flood control project filed suit against the District in 2002. At that time a settlement agreement was reached and one provision of it forbade the land owners from challenging the project again. read more...
http://www.aclu-mn.org/

To leave a comment about this topic you can click here

7/22/08 Rights Already Secured To The Citizen-->Click here to skip down to the video!
Since When Did We Need A License To Run For Office?  The Right and Duty of the sovereign people is decide what person is qualified for public office by deciding which candidate is more qualified through an impartial election administered by our Secretary of States Office headed by Mark Richie.  We created our government and we decided long ago who gets to serve us, which is the fundamental question being argued here. 

The government has said, it's not the peoples right to govern themselves and, to understand this, let's start by asking the question; Why would the Judicial branch or legislators want the ability to control the group who gets to serve office?  Could it be so that the government can control itself? Become self governing?

Our government is no longer controlled by the people but is instead controlled by an elitist group of judges, politicians and corporate media outlets that control our information.  We the "sheeple" are suppose to decide who can run for office, it's not suppose to be the judges, politicians, the governor or the secretary of states job to decide who is going to serve or run our offices, we the people are suppose to be able to decide that.

Think about what is going on here, the attorneys have essentially taken over our political system.  Ok, breath a little and hear me out, the attorneys have sworn an oath to the judicial branch of our government and by doing that they are basically serving duel offices when they act as both an attorney and a politician and are essentially violating the separation of powers clause by holding duel offices in our branches of government.  This poses a conflict of interest when swearing their oath of office to uphold the constitutions and to that of their profession which requires a license by possessing a special privilege.  It causes a conflict of interest for our lawyers and it poses a conflict of interest across our state government which needs to be rectified.

Attorneys swear an oath to NEVER go against the judge. Because of this oath, the attorneys are all OFFICERS of the COURT!

The attorneys all "hold an office" in the judicial branch.

The Minnesota Constitutions specifically states that a person CANNOT hold an office in two branches of government at the same time.

But many attorneys in Minnesota REFUSE to obey our constitutions and they hold TWO offices in different branches of government at the same time.

For example, many legislators are attorneys, and by holding an office in the legislature at the same time they are "officers" in the judicial branch…they are violating our Minnesota constitution. These attorneys, many times promote and enact laws that benefit them in their law practices, corporations and private gains using our public assets.

Governor Tim Pawlenty is no different, as he is a sworn officer of the court (an attorney) at the same time he is the Governor (in the Executive branch). Pawlenty is in violation of our state constitution. Pawlenty refuses to call a grand jury to investigate the criminal actions of certain judges. Why? Because Pawlenty, an attorney, has sworn an oath to NEVER oppose a judge.

So it comes down to this…
Do the PEOPLE have a right to CHOSE who they want to be serving them as a judge?
Absolutely.
And…until We Start Paying Attention.. The attorneys and special interest groups will continue to have complete control over OUR government and our rights.

If you haven't noticed the state legislators have acted as if they think they can legislate our constitutional rights away but they aren't suppose to be able too which means they aren't suppose to be able too legislate our constitutional right to elect our officials away either. 

Minnesota State Constitution ARTICLE VI JUDICIARY Sec. 5. QUALIFICATIONS; COMPENSATION. Judges of the supreme court, the court of appeals and the district court shall be learned in the law. The qualifications of all other judges and judicial officers shall be prescribed by law. The compensation of all judges shall be prescribed by the legislature and shall not be diminished during their term of office. [Amended, November 2, 1982].
See http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/cco/rules/mncon/Article6.htm.

According to the MN Supreme court, the American Bar Association (ABA) “approves” the colleges that a person must attend and graduate from before taking the exam from the “Board of Law Examiners”.  Basically,

The Supreme Court has COMPLETE control over who gets to be an attorney. And,

The Supreme Court also has COMPLETE control over who becomes a judge too.

The Supreme Court puts together the Minnesota State Board of Law Examiners (who create a "test") and then the Board "recommends" someone to get licensed to the MN Sup. Ct. The MN Supreme Court then decides whether the person actually gets the license to practice law and now you have to have a license if you want to run for judge. (And you have to attend and graduate from one of the schools that the Court says is a "qualified school")
Here is a link you need to see: http://www.ble.state.mn.us/character_and_fitness.html

Can you IMAGINE if the Legislators created a test and decided (even if a person passes the test) whether or not the person can run for the office of state rep. or senator? 

Thus, those that have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have the right to do as such license would be meaningless. City of Chicago v. Collins. 

A "license” apparently grants or confers some sort of right or privilege. Privileges which are comparable to businesses that uses public assets for private or personal gain or those who are engaged in commercial activity.  A license then can only be required of someone who does not already have an inherent right to be able to perform what is already a secured right of theirs such as represent oneself "In Propria Persona" instead of "Pro Se" in a court proceeding or to say in this case, run for public office or have to secure a defense for which the state had not properly stated as facts beyond a reasonable doubt. 

If you followed it this far, you the citizen therefore shouldn't have to already secure a right that one already possesses by way of a license.  A license is a privilege granted by “the State,” to constitute a privilege, the grant must confer authority to do something which, without the grant, would be illegal;

In other words, "The power to regulate does not necessarily include the power to license.  In passing on the question of whether in a particular case the power to regulate includes the power to license; it is well to bear in mind the distinction between a regulation and a license.  Regulations apply equally to all.  A license, however, gives to the licensee a special privilege not accorded to others and which he himself otherwise would not enjoy.  Once a power to license exists, certain acts become illegal for all who have not been licensed." Brooklyn Center v. Rippen, 255 Minn. 334, 96 N.W.2d 585 (1959);  Note 3 See, 33 Am. Jur., Licenses, Sec. 2; 53 C.J.S., License, Sub. Sec. 1 and 3. 

 Storer v Brown, 415 US 724, 759 - 761, 39 L Ed 2d 714, 740 - 741; "The Court acknowledges the burdens imposed by § 6830(d) (Supp 1974) upon fundamental personal liberties, see ante, at 734, 39 L Ed 2d, at 726, but agrees with the State's assertion that the burdens are justified by the State's compelling interest in the stability of its political system, ante, at 736, 39 L Ed 2d, at 727.  Without § 6830(d) (Supp 1974), the argument runs, the party's primary system, an integral part of the election process, is capable of subversion by a candidate who first opts to participate in that method of ballot access, and later abandons the party and its candidate- selection process, taking with him his party supporters.  Thus, in sustaining the validity of § 6830(d) (Supp 1974), the Court finds compelling the State's interests in preventing splintered parties and unrestricted factionalism and protecting the direct-primary system, ante, at 736, 39 L Ed 2d, at 727.<fn 2> [415 US 760] * * * "Compelling state interests may not be pursued by "means that unnecessarily burden or restrict constitutionally protected activity.  Statutes affecting constitutional rights must be drawn with 'precision,' NAACP v Button, 371 US 415, 438, 9 L Ed 2d 405, 83 S Ct 328 (1963); United States v Robel, 389 US 258, 265, 19 L Ed 2d 508, 88 S Ct 419 (1967), and must be 'tailored' to serve their legitimate objectives.  Shapiro v Thompson [394 US 618, 631 (1969)] [22 L Ed 2d 600, 89 S Ct 1322].  And if there are other, reasonable ways to achieve those goals with a lesser burden on constitutionally protected activity, a State may not choose the way of greater interference.  If it acts at all, it must choose 'less drastic means.'  Shelton v Tucker, 364 US 479, 488 [5 L Ed 2d 231, 81 S Ct 247] (1960). Dunn v Blumstein, 405 US, at 343, 31 L Ed 2d 274."

 Miller v United States, 230 F. 486 at 489."The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."

 “While states are really sovereign as to all matters which have not been granted to United States, Constitution and laws of the latter are supreme law of land, and when they conflict with state laws, they are of paramount authority and obligation.” Ex parte Siebold (1880) 100 US 371, 25 L Ed 717.

Watch Secretary of State Video Below:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7544784062125564739

Watch these other videos from MNChange.org

Secret Service Getting Involved and Detaining MNChange At a McCain Event.

See Republican Party v White which started all this by the way, by basically illustrating that when Judges run for office there doesn't really happen to be any restrictions on a judges freedom of speech and so they can essentially make any number of campaign promises on cases they haven't yet heard. 

To leave a blog comment click here

7/17/08 St Paul City Council Open Meeting Violation #3
Nancy Lazaryan and Bob Zick showing their viewers one of the problems with the St. Paul City Council in that they are violating the peoples rights.

13D.06 CIVIL FINES; FORFEITURE OF OFFICE; OTHER REMEDIES.
Subd. 3. Forfeit office if three violations. (a) If a person has been found to have intentionally violated this chapter in three or more actions brought under this chapter involving the same governing body, such person shall forfeit any further right to serve on such governing body or in any other capacity with such public body for a period of time equal to the term of office such person was then serving.

Morris v. Sax Supreme Court Ruling on how city ordinances are not suppose to supersede state statutes. http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/supct/0805/OPA061188-0515.pdf

117.0412 LOCAL GOVERNMENT PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENTS.
(b) Any interested person must be allowed reasonable time to present relevant testimony at the public hearing. The proceedings of the hearing must be recorded and available to the public for review and comment at reasonable times and a reasonable place. At the next regular meeting of the local government that is at least 30 days after the public hearing, the local government must vote on the question of whether to authorize the local government or local government agency to use eminent domain to acquire the property.

Other Related Videos: 7/2/08_City_of_St_Paul_Evicting_People_From_Their_Homes
 
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2889722505597651505

To leave a blog comment click here

7/11/08 Felony Police Actions Part 11
Anoka county officials are rolling the dice with your rights people and it's not just with the Sheriffs office!  The question is could, the sheriffs office with the use of deadly force be liable for deprivation of parenting time which is a felony according to state statutes and could the officers be removed from service for not upholding their oath of office?  The sheriffs office was called to help a parent exercise their court order and was denied their civil liberties.  See what happens when our federal laws are not followed and how a biased culture at the county courthouse can create a potential legal nightmare for the community and our officers to have to deal with.  The question is, are parental rights really a civil matter as the county attorney's office would like the community to believe or are they fundamental rights?  Check out Troxel vs Granville to see what the supreme court has to say about a matter related to this situation to judge for yourself. 

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=518.003
518.003 DEFINITIONS.
    Subdivision 1. Scope. For the purposes of this chapter and chapter 518A, the following terms have the meanings provided in this section unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
    Subd. 3. Custody. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties:
(a) "Legal custody" means the right to determine the child's upbringing, including education, health care, and religious training.
(b) "Joint legal custody" means that both parents have equal rights and responsibilities, including the right to participate in major decisions determining the child's upbringing, including education, health care, and religious training.
(c) "Physical custody and residence" means the routine daily care and control and the residence of the child.
(d) "Joint physical custody" means that the routine daily care and control and the residence of the child is structured between the parties.
(e) Wherever used in this chapter, the term "custodial parent" or "custodian" means the person who has the physical custody of the child at any particular time.

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=609.26
609.26 DEPRIVING ANOTHER OF CUSTODIAL OR PARENTAL RIGHTS.
    Subdivision 1. Prohibited acts. Whoever intentionally does any of the following acts may be charged with a felony and, upon conviction, may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 6:
(1) conceals a minor child from the child's parent where the action manifests an intent substantially to deprive that parent of parental rights or conceals a minor child from another person having the right to parenting time or custody where the action manifests an intent to substantially deprive that person of rights to parenting time or custody;
(3) takes, obtains, retains, or fails to return a minor child from or to the parent in violation of a court order, where the action manifests an intent substantially to deprive that parent of rights to parenting time or custody;
(4) takes, obtains, retains, or fails to return a minor child from or to a parent after commencement of an action relating to child parenting time or custody but prior to the issuance of an order determining custody or parenting time rights, where the action manifests an intent substantially to deprive that parent of parental rights;
(6) refuses to return a minor child to a parent or lawful custodian and is at least 18 years old and more than 24 months older than the child;

   Subd. 4. Return of child; costs. A child who has been concealed, obtained, or retained in violation of this section shall be returned to the person having lawful custody of the child or shall be taken into custody pursuant to section 260C.175, subdivision 1, paragraph (b), clause (2). In addition to any sentence imposed, the court may assess any expense incurred in returning the child against any person convicted of violating this section. The court may direct the appropriate county welfare agency to provide counseling services to a child who has been returned pursuant to this subdivision.

    Subd. 6. Penalty. (a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) and subdivision 5, whoever violates this section may be sentenced as follows:
(1) to imprisonment for not more than two years or to payment of a fine of not more than $4,000, or both; or
(2) to imprisonment for not more than four years or to payment of a fine of not more than $8,000, or both, if the court finds that:
(i) the defendant committed the violation while possessing a dangerous weapon or caused substantial bodily harm to effect the taking;

Another Father In Minnesota "Shall and Shall2"

7/9/08 Jessie Ventura At Barns and Noble-->The Media Is In The Back Pocket of The Two Parties
While it maybe easy to disagree with some of Jessie's ideas and policies for our government, it's not hard to agree with him when he starts criticizing our government and the media.  The Bigger the Lie the Easier the Sell-Adolph Hitler

7/7/08 Continuing Education For Police On Our Constitution
Another 4th Amendment Violation, Troy Molde who had the police break into his home because he didn't answer his door at 3am, giving some insight on how we can help uphold our rights as citizens by requiring the police department to have classes on the constitution as part of their continuing education.
 
 

7/2/08 City of St Paul Evicting People From Their Homes
The City of St Paul held a public hearing but didn't want the public to talk about what they were really doing.  The issue is whenever a homeowner or a tenant falls behind in one of their utility bills, the city believes they can come and condemn your home if it doesn't meet the current inspection requirements.  This is another form of eminent domain that is completely outside the scope of our government and we need to close these kinds of loopholes and prevent these kinds of people from being so careless with our rights.  The following, is a link to the City Councils website where you can find out who these people are http://www.stpaul.gov/index.asp?NID=553, that said St Paul residents, please take note and get these people out of office before other cities start thinking they can follow their lead.  This is egregious in it's worse sense because even a new home that is only a couple of years old could be found out of current compliance and can be condemned by the city leaving the homeowner defenseless to the government profiteers if the homeowner doesn't have the resources to fight it or comply. 

Think about it, within 30 day's your new home could be destroyed and you would have to pay the city back for the demolition costs and the land developers in your area that have ties to the city council could be making a killing off of you. Wake up people!  Does the government really work for you or do they work for themselves.  Not only that but agenda number 56, which was the last on on the agenda for this Public Hearing by the way, is also in court and which means the city has no authority or jurisdiction over the matter, the courts have jurisdiction, but hey that's our government in Minnesota for you. 

On last piece of information to ponder normally these St Paul City Council meetings are aired on Public Access TV CH18 on Thursdays at 5:30 p.m., Saturdays at 12:30 p.m., and Sundays at 1:00 p.m. but guess what, I hear this meeting hasn't been and probably won't be televised.  Anyone wonder why? Doesn't matter because you can get your information right here and we will be at the next weeks Wednesday meeting too.  More to come so stay tuned.  As an FYI, the whole meeting can be viewed on the city councils website but the fun starts at agenda item 53, http://stpaul.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=37&clip_id=850
 

6/30/08 Senate Set to Renew 1997 Law that Rewards the CPS to Kidnap Children
S. 3038 is the renewal of ASFA '97, the act that gives the states BILLION$ to kidnap and adopt out children on the flimsiest anonymous allegation, even known malicious false accusations. 

Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (PL 105-89), also widely known as ASFA '97 was the program designed to promote and increase the number of adoptions from foster care by rewarding states that increased adoptions each year.

ASFA '97 sunsets on September 30, 2008.

In the Senate RIGHT NOW is the-

"Improved Adoption Incentives and Relative Guardianship Support Act of 2008 (S. 3038) - Amends part E (Foster Care and Adoption Assistance) of title IV of the Social Security Act (SSA) to: (1) extend the adoption incentives program through FY2012; (2) increase the incentive payment to a state for exceeding the highest ever foster child adoption rate; (3) increase incentive payments for special needs adoptions and older child adoptions; (4) revise requirements for the adoption assistance program to promote the adoption of children with special needs; and (5) give states the option to provide for relative guardianship assistance payments for children." 

BACKGROUND

Beginning with Mondale's "Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974 (CAPTA '74), a war was launched upon America's families.  

Soon after came "The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980"  "The Act required all states to establish an adoption subsidy program and remove the financial disincentives to states by providing federal dollars to be used as a portion of adoption subsidy payments for children previously eligible for the Title IV-E Foster Care Program.

Then came the "Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997" (PL 105-89).  

This nightmare is now bleeding the Social Security system for $7 Billion a year.

CONSEQUENCES- The "Collateral Damage"

What quickly evolved was- Malfeasant "investigations" conducted under the color of law, consisting of character assassination, hiding exculpatory evidence, "evidence" fabrication from thin air and bald faced lies both in Affidavits and Sworn Testimony in court, holding the kids hostage to coerce "cooperation", and obstructing parents until the "15 months of 22 months" clock tolls for automatic Termination of Parental Rights (TPR).

As evidenced by the Texas FLDS fiasco, where the standard method of operation of CPS was put on every television in the world, there is not even the pretense of the REQUIRED BY LAW "Reasonable Efforts" being made to prevent children being kidnapped from their homes.

We now have unconstitutional "family courts" where every actor, including the "judge" is part of the "prosecution team". The court-appointed attorneys do not offer anything resembling a "vigorous defense"- unlike what happened on behalf of the FLDS in Texas.  

If people commit a crime against a child, then it should be treated as a CRIME, not as SORT OF a civil lawsuit.  The accused is prejudged "Guilty", having no Miranda Rights, no Constitutional Rights, no due process, no fair and impartial court, no defense.

We urge you to tell your Senators to vote NO on both S. 3038 and H.R. 6307.

Contact your Senators TODAY!  Tell them to END the War on Families.  

LET THE PERVERSE INCENTIVES SUNSET THAT FRAUDULENTLY KIDNAP KIDS FOR MONEY.

6/22/08 Lakeville Police Breaking An Entry
Just because your door isn't locked, it doesn't give anyone a right to enter your home without permission.  At 3am this guy was woken up in his bedroom with flashlights in his face from the Lakeville police department as a friendly reminder to shut his garage door.  Is this good public policy?  Watch the video below to see what the police saw to judge for yourself it this was an unlawful entry by the police department.