From Anna Lambert < Parental Rights Action Suit
42 USC 2000d-7(a), which commands:
(1) A State shall not be immune under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States from suit in Federal court for a violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [29 U.S.C. 794], title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 [20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.], the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 [42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.], title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.], or the provisions of any other Federal statute prohibiting discrimination by recipients of Federal financial assistance.
(2) In a suit against a State for a violation of a statute referred to in paragraph (1), remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available for such a violation to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in the suit against any public or private entity other than a State
And so, you see, that last clause of (a)(1), “the provisions of any other Federal statute prohibiting discrimination by recipients of Federal financial assistance” means that ALL of the state court systems, and their “programs and activities” which are all at least partially funded by federal funding automatically waives all immunity for the 50 States and Commonwealths. In other words, because the family courts are at least partially federally funded, any discrimination by family courts (i.e., gender discrimination, class discrimination, racial discrimination, etc.) automatically waives all so-called immunity in a suit against them within federal court, and (a)(2) expressly then also provides for full availability of ALL remedies – “both at law and in equity” – against the States and Commonwealths, just exactly the same as are available against any other public or private entity… There is no immunity defense even available, whatsoever. We’re not suing individual state actors, like individual judges. We are just directly suing States and Commonwealths, and they have no immunity in this case, period, per the above.
Jurisdiction is another topic that shouldn’t even be questioned, truthfully, as it is also so straightforward and easy, that again, it’s not even remotely a concern. The federal Constitution provides direct jurisdiction, 42 USC 1983 provides us direct and express statutory jurisdiction, the False Claims Act also provides direct and express statutory jurisdiction, federal question jurisdiction is expressly and routinely provided by 28 USC 1331, etc., etc., etc., and in fact, there are a variety of other federal statutes to use, a variety of federal case laws to use, and so forth and so on. It’s not whether there is jurisdiction, it’s only a question of just how many of the widely available jurisdictional routes do we wish to incorporate (and spend our time writing the language for within the lawsuit’s Complaint). Jurisdiction is not even remotely any concern, whatsoever, other than just deciding which several of the many available routes/devices are used.
“Parents have a fundamental right to the custody of their children, and the deprivation of that right effects a cognizable injury. See Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758-59, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 1397, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1982).” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 68-69, 147 L. Ed. 2d 49, 120 S. Ct. 2054 (2000). In other words, the SCOTUS has already expressly provided our direct legal standing (and direct jurisdiction) to be in federal court to sue over these exact, same unlawful deprivations of fundamental parental rights, and that is also *in addition* to all of the many other available routes/devices in legal standing
Title IV-D is flatly illegal for direct conflicts of interest
— The entire Title IV-D funding scheme is flagrantly unconstitutional and a completely fraudulent usage of taxpayer dollars. Did you know that there are actually statutes on the books in each State and Commonwealth that detail how Title IV-D federal funding is to be used, which includes basically dividing up all the “profits” (from unlawfully screwing and cheating so-called “noncustodial” parents in generally outrageous child support orders having no relation to the real world) and paying out different percentages of those “profits” to each County, to each Title IV-D office and their own personnel, to each family court budget, and so forth? Can you spell “m-e-r-c-e-n-a-r-y”?? This insane and wholly unjust system uses federal taxpayer dollars to literally provide direct financial incentives for family courts to commit fraud as much as possible, i.e., violate rights, go beyond limits, etc., etc., as often as they can, because the more Title IV-D monies they order against everyone, the higher all of their percentage takes received. Like the bonuses and commissions that form the basis for rampant fraud by social workers in the CPS/DSS/DCF/etc. victimization realm, these Title IV-D profits being paid to incentivize the family courts into routinely violating parents’ constitutional rights are so ridiculously unjust against the very premise and existence of a court of law, one hardly knows where to begin listing all of the illegal violations going on with that. And, it’s not only the direct fraud regarding those conflicts of interest, fiduciary duties, and etc., but there’s also the fact of actually using taxpayer dollars to commit widespread violations of citizens’ constitutional and due process rights, even to induce higher rates of commissions of crimes by state actors against innocent citizens. Therefore, all of Title IV-D is a flagrantly unconstitutional and highly fraudulent, illegally repulsive funding scheme that must be terminated.
Every TPR (CPS) case is constitutionally entitled to a JURY trial
— Another very huge biggie is not being allowed a trial by jury within any TPR case (termination of parental rights case, which is what all “CPS” actions are), yet we’re talking about fundamental rights that are “superior” to “mere” constitutional rights listed in the Federal Constitution, as SCOTUS has ruled more than once. If all of the fundamental rights guaranteed by our Federal Constitution are also guaranteed full due process protections – including the right to jury trial upon any of those fundamental issues of life, liberty, property and so forth – and if parental rights to custody of their own children are “superior” to those same “mere” constitutional rights listed within the Federal Constitution, then clearly and obviously there is likewise an absolute right to trial by jury in every government action attempting to terminate a parent’s pre-existing and superior rights to their own child or children. And yes, if you’re wondering, the same thing pretty much applies to the other victimization realm of the above divorce-and-similar-with-kids section, too.
All CPS actions are unconstitutional for lack of warrants, probable cause
— There are absolutely flagrant, constant and routine violations of the 4th and 14th Amendments, i.e., violating the constitutional principle and guarantee that “every man’s home is his castle”, secure from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, which is what the 4th Amendment is all about (“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause”). Social “services” workers take children without a warrant, depriving both the children and their parents of their clear fundamental constitutional rights. Also, the 14th Amendment backs this right up: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” In other words, as a natural/biological parent and a citizen of the United States of America, you have certain *guaranteed* due process rights, including some of your “privileges and immunities” to be free from unallowed actions by government, likewise with violating your equal protection of the laws (because social services is not also doing the same thing to literally every other parent out there…), and so forth and so on. Indeed, the 14th Amendment commands that the states are not even allowed to have any laws on their own books which try to circumvent these constitutional protections for life, liberty and property (i.e., any “social services” statutes which falsely try to say otherwise, as if they supposedly can just come to your door without any actual warrants). The constant and routine shredding of even these most basic due process protections by social services workers is very clear and obvious, and that is wholly and completely unconstitutional, wholly wrongful in every sense of the word, and all such unlawful practices cannot even legally exist in this country, whatsoever, at all.
All CPS social workers are unlawfully acting without proper legal capacity
— Social workers are NOT licensed law enforcement personnel (police officers, etc.), lawyers, or doctors, but they always falsely and fraudulently attempt to act in those capacities. Social workers seize children for pre-emptive reasons without actually going through due process procedures of legally-qualified evidence and legally-established probable cause, i.e., they allege *crimes* of child abuse and/or child neglect, but don’t even bother actually pressing those criminal charges (in every fraudulent CPS case), because pressing formal criminal charges would also require actual, real due process procedures, you see, like the right to trial by jury discussed above, and the several other big due process procedures that social workers want to avoid and do false and unlawful “administrative” end-runs around. For example, responding to an alleged violent assault upon a child is NOT an issue for social workers, but is a law enforcement issue… To carry that one step further, it is a conflict of interest for a social services agency to have the power to remove a child when there is monetary incentive to do that (see the above first argument example), especially worse when social workers are pretending to falsely act in capacity like law enforcement, lawyers, and/or doctors themselves, i.e., pretend to act in the capacities of trained, skilled forensic evidence examiners, while the police do not have that false monetary incentive conflict of interest, and they do have the proper training and skills to collect credible evidence and properly process crime scenes. Do you now see the very huge difference?
You already HAD full custody, before ever entering family court
— Every natural/biological parent *already* has full legal/physical custody of their child from the very moment of birth. These full and equally-shared custodial rights over children are *pre-existing* long before ever entering into any family court process. Yet, every day of the week, family courts are automatically, arbitrarily, unilaterally and summarily just reclassifying one-half of the parents as fictitiously-alleged “noncustodial” parents, and then of course also adding on further secondary orders like support and visitation. The flagrantly unconstitutional problem is that the state has absolutely no legal authority, in the first place, whatsoever, to start ordering around how any child is to be taken care of, especially including ordering you – the natural/biological parent with pre-existing and superior rights to your child/ren – how much time, money and other efforts you must expend upon your own natural child/ren, until and unless the state *first* would prove you seriously “unfit” to continue retaining your pre-existing parental rights, i.e., first proving by clear and convincing evidence under full due process procedures that you are seriously unfit parent with seriously documented child abuse/neglect/etc. Only then, i.e., only *after* first removing your parental rights by a sanctioned compelling interest (protecting children from serious abuse/neglect/etc.), may the state then finally have the actual legal authority to start acting like the parent of that child itself, by directing how the child is to be taken care of (how much money to spend each week on the child, where the child will live and go to school, medical, dental, and everything else involved in raising a child). Since the mid-1970s and federalization of family law, the family courts have been doing this wrong for so long now, that the general public mistakenly believes that a divorce-or-similar case is all about “he said, she said” enough to “win” custody of their own children, all of which could never be further from the actual truth. A family court itself (“the State”) does NOT have ANY custody of the child, and it is a pure fiction, a fantasy, an absolute legal nullity, a complete fraud, for any family court judge to “award” or “grant” custody of a child to either/both natural parents. Remember, they (both) *already have* their (equally-shared) *pre-existing* custodial rights to their child/ren. No family court judge can “award” or “grant” something it does not even have (child custody) to someone who already has it (child custody)… The entire notion is a completely and directly unconstitutional fraud, of widespread and epidemic proportions. What is actually going on within that (wholly unlawful) process is that the family court is actually allowing one parent to *retain* her/his pre-existing custodial rights, but actually *removing* the other parent’s equal pre-existing custodial rights, but *without* following the absolutely required prerequisite due process procedures of first removing that parent’s pre-existing custodial rights by proving serious parental unfitness. By allowing one parent to retain their constitutional parents rights (which are always superior to the state’s rights), yet actually removing the other parent’s same and equal pre-existing rights (without even so much as bothering to tell them that that is what is actually happening…), there are always three (3) big unconstitutional violations going on, every time, regardless whether it’s the mother-over-father, or father-over-mother: (1) direct violations of that victimized parent’s own individual various due process and constitutional rights; (2) direct violations of equal protection of the laws; and (3) flagrant gender discrimination along with the related “bias and prejudice” principles, as between those two natural parents. Again, it doesn’t matter which is the favored parent and which is the victimized parent, because it’s gender discrimination between them, either way, and violation of equal protection of the laws, either way. The entire family court system, nationwide, is directly and flagrantly unconstitutional, beyond any shadow of doubt, and therefore every State and Commonwealth must repair its own family court system to comply with real law and rights. (Both of) you already had full custody