Home Recommended Products Contact Us
Resources & Links
Fatherlessness Statistics
Child Support
Legal Resources
Search This Site
Bad Judges List
Free Templates
Restraining Orders
Judicial Abuse Stories
Father's Stories
Legal Help & Referrals
Constitutional Rights
Table of Contents
Terms & Conditions
Signup for Newsletter
Search Site

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 02:11:35 -0000
From: "thedesnoyers5" <court_watchers@verizon.net>
Subject: First off you are NOT alone!

First off you are NOT alone!

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. Thoma Jefferson

SUPREME COURT RULES 9-0 On March 8, 2004, Supreme Court Rules That Hearsay Evidence in Child Abuse/neglect and Domestic Violence Cases Is Not Admissible. Parents Have the Constitutional Right to Confront Their Accuser under the 6th Amendment. DCF, the AAG and the States Attorney must Now Comply with the 6th Amendment in Child
Abuse/neglect and Domestic Violence Cases.

The "liberty interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests" recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. Troxel v.Granville, 527 U.S. 1069 (1999). Moreover, the companionship, care, custody, and management of a parent over his or her child is an interest far more precious than any property right. May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 533, (1952). As such, the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection. Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 27 (1981).

Holding: The Supreme Court in Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 127- 29 (1997) and Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429, 432- 37 (1993), effectively overruled this circuit's precedent in Babcock v. Tyler, 884 F.2d 497, 502-03 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that absolute immunity for social workers extended to include post- adjudication dependency proceedings). Under Antoine and Kalina, a court in determining whether absolute immunity applies should look at the nature of the officials' functions and then determine whether those functions enjoyed absolute immunity at common law. Where Supreme Court authority is clearly irreconcilable with prior circuit authority, a three-judge panel of this court and district courts should consider themselves bound by the intervening higher authority and reject the prior opinion of this court as having been effectively overruled, even if the prior opinion had not been expressly overruled by an en banc court.

Social Workers are NOT officiers of the Court and do NOT have Immunity. (To make this long statement Clear!)


TITLE 28--JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE PART I--ORGANIZATION OF COURTS CHAPTER 21--GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO COURTS AND JUDGES Sec. 453. Oaths of justices and judges Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: ``I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''