So just now, the middle Tennessee community is upset because Vanderbilt is performing gender transition therapies and surgeries for children. Tennessee LookOut reporter Holly McCall and Tennessee Stands Gary Humble published commentary on the recent events which included a call from Congresswoman Marjorie Green to criminalize gender surgeries for children, Matt Walsh’s (Daily Wire) podcast regarding Vanderbilt’s “gender butchery”, and the responses of Governor Bill Lee, Senator Jack Johnson, and House member William Lamberth.
Although I disagree with Ms. McCall’s characterization of Congresswoman Green as a “looney toon”, I do agree that if suddenly the Tennessee General Assembly is outraged at how children are being treated in Tennessee, especially by the government, they are walking with blinders. Holly pointed out AGAIN the systemic dysfunction of DCS which I have screamed about for two decades and little to no respect or response from the General Assembly. However, my voice was loud enough and threatening enough that the Tennessee government needed to shut me up, disgrace me, and make me ineffective.
I have faced the anti-lobbying efforts of the executive branch every time I have lobbied for changes in the law to better protect families and children.
But since suddenly legislators want to know what Vanderbilt does let me tell you more. Vanderbilt has misdiagnosed child abuse many many times under the supervision of child abuse pediatrician Deborah Lowen, M.D. I have heard Dr. Lowen testify under oath the an infant could not have multiple fractured ribs if the parents squeezed and shook the baby violently. She has absolutely ignored the differential diagnosis of infantile rickets even though the American Academy of Pediatrics position paper warned of this. The result is that several infants have been separated from their mothers as infants and placed in the homes of strangers, many while still nursing infants. Remarkably Dr. Deborah Lowen is now employed full time at DCS. She should be fired.
What else? Well Vanderbilt reported a family to DCS for medical neglect when they refused to treat their 11 year old with Humira (a biologic) which was against their religion
Federal payments – our tax dollars – go to states to support the entire foster care and group home system. Payments begin the moment a child is taken with bonuses for “special needs” such as medication, then more bonuses to state agencies for termination of parental rights or adoption of children even if parents are still fighting for custody in Family Court. The most recent estimates are that foster care in America is a $1,000+ billion per year industry. See annual expenditures; https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research
As last reported in August 2019, 437,238 children nationally were removed from their families and placed in foster homes according to the federal government Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/afcarsreport26.pdf
This traumatization of US children has reached epidemic proportions. According to a 10-year study by the American Public Health Association, an alarming estimate that 37.4% of all children experience a child protective services investigation by age 18 years. That results in 27.7 million children investigated based upon the current U.S. population census of approximately 75 million children under age 18 https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303545 or 49 million parents being investigated according to the latest 2019 U.S. Census Bureau findings. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2019/demo/families/cps-2019.html
What’s even more alarming is that a staggering 84% of all child removals are not related to any physical harm to the child whatsoever as reported to the US Congress in the AFCARS report above. Furthermore, 61% of the placements were considered neglect, which is based purely on social worker discretion, which basically translates to the freedom to do whatever the caseworker wants. What they see as “neglect” is often just what poverty looks like. Instead of getting help to parent, the parents get their children taken. Please see the annual U.S. Department of Health & Human Services report. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm2018.pdf
In June of 2018, the Children’s Defense League and 540 organizations from all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico which have well-recognized expertise in the fields of child welfare, juvenile justice and child health, development and safety, reported that the separation of children from their parents will have significant and long-lasting consequences for the safety, health, development, and well-being of children. https://www.childrensdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/child-welfare-juvenile.pdf
Connie Reguli: This is an important story that was published by CBS in 2005. I am circulating this again because I know that children in foster care are still given vaccines, drugs, and other medications without parental consent or knowledge. When our last public health crises was raging, DCS was leaving it up to the foster parents to make decisions about that vaccine.
By John Soloman
MAY 4, 2005 / 3:49 PM / CBS/AP
Government-funded researchers tested AIDS drugs on hundreds of foster children over the past two decades, often without providing them a basic protection afforded in federal law and required by some states, an Associated Press review has found.
The research funded by the National Institutes of Health spanned the country. It was most widespread in the 1990s as foster care agencies sought treatments for their HIV-infected children that weren’t yet available in the marketplace.
The practice ensured that foster children – mostly poor or minority – received care from world-class researchers at government expense, slowing their rate of death and extending their lives. But it also exposed a vulnerable population to the risks of medical research and drugs that were known to have serious side effects in adults and for which the safety for children was unknown.
The research was conducted in at least seven states – Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Colorado and Texas – and involved more than four dozen different studies. The foster children ranged from infants to late teens, according to interviews and government records.
Several studies that enlisted foster children reported patients suffered side effects such as rashes, vomiting and sharp drops in infection-fighting blood cells as they tested antiretroviral drugs to suppress AIDS or other medicines to treat secondary infections.
In one study, researchers reported a “disturbing” higher death rate among children who took higher doses of a drug. That study was unable to determine a safe and effective dosage.
The government provided special protections for child wards in 1983. They required researchers and their oversight boards to appoint independent advocates for any foster child enrolled in a narrow class of studies that involved greater than minimal risk and lacked the promise of direct benefit. Some foster agencies required the protection regardless of risks and benefits.
Advocates must be independent of the foster care and research agencies, have some understanding of medical issues and “act in the best interests of the child” for the entirety of the research, the law states.
However, researchers and foster agencies told AP that foster children in AIDS drug trials often weren’t given such advocates even though research institutions many times promised to do so to gain access to the children.
Illinois officials believe none of their nearly 200 foster children in AIDS studies got independent monitors even though researchers signed a document guaranteeing “the appointment of an advocate for each individual ward participating in the respective medical research.”
New York City could find records showing 142 – less than a third – of the 465 foster children in AIDS drug trials got such monitors even though city policy required them. The city has asked an outside firm to investigate.
Likewise, research facilities including Chicago’s Children’s Memorial Hospital and Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore said they concluded they didn’t provide advocates for foster kids.
Some states declined to participate in medical experiments. Tennessee said its foster care rules generally prohibit enlisting children in such trials. California requires a judge’s order. And Wisconsin “has absolutely never allowed, nor would we even consider, any clinical experiments with the children in our foster care system,” spokeswoman Stephanie Marquis said.
Officials estimated that 5 percent to 10 percent of the 13,878 children enrolled in pediatric AIDS studies funded by NIH since the late 1980s were in foster care. More than two dozen Illinois foster children remain in studies today.
Some foster children died during studies, but state or city agencies said they could find no records that any deaths were directly caused by experimental treatments.
Researchers typically secured permission to enroll foster children through city or state agencies. And they frequently exempted themselves from appointing advocates by concluding the research carried minimal risk and the child would directly benefit because the drugs had already been tried in adults.
“Our position is that advocates weren’t needed,” said Marilyn Castaldi, spokeswoman for Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center in New York.
If they decline to appoint advocates under the federal law, researchers and their oversight boards must conclude that the experimental treatment affords the same or better risk-benefit possibilities than alternate treatments already in the marketplace. They also must abide by any additional protections required by state and local authorities.
Many of the studies that enrolled foster children occurred after 1990 when the government approved using the drug AZT – an effective AIDS treatment – for children.
Arthur Caplan, head of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said advocates should have been appointed for all foster children because researchers felt the pressure of a medical crisis and knew there was great uncertainty as to how children would react to AIDS medications that were often toxic for adults.
“It is exactly that set of circumstances that made it absolutely mandatory to get those kids those advocates,” Caplan said. “It is inexcusable that they wouldn’t have an advocate for each one of those children.
“When you have the most vulnerable subjects imaginable – kids without parents – you really do have to come in with someone independent, who doesn’t have a dog in this fight,” he said.
Those who made the decisions say the research gave foster kids access to drugs they otherwise couldn’t get. And they say they protected the children’s interest by carefully explaining risks and benefits to state guardians, foster parents and the children themselves.
“I understand the ethical dilemma surrounding the introduction of foster children into trials,” said Dr. Mark Kline, a pediatric AIDS expert at Baylor College of Medicine. He enrolled some Texas foster kids in his studies, and doesn’t recall appointing advocates for them.
“To say as a group that foster children should be excluded from clinical trials would have meant excluding these children from the best available therapies at the time,” he said. “From an ethical perspective, I never thought that was a stand I could take.”
Illinois officials directly credit the decision to enroll HIV-positive foster kids with bringing about a decline in deaths – from 40 between 1989 and 1995 to only 19 since.
NIH, the government health research agency that funded the studies, did not track researchers to determine if they appointed advocates. Instead, the decision was left to medical review boards made up of volunteers at each study site.
A recent Institute of Medicine study concluded those Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) were often overwhelmed, dominated by scientists and not focused enough on patient protections. An ethicist who served 22 years on such boards said they lack the resources to ensure the safety of foster children.
“Over the last half century, IRBs have basically broken under the strain of some of the structural changes in research,” said Gregory E. Pence, a University of Alabama-Birmingham bioethicist.
The U.S. Office for Human Research Protections, created to protect research participants after the infamous Tuskegee syphilis studies on black men, is investigating the use of foster children in AIDS research. The office declined to discuss the probe.
NIH said it considers patient safety its top priority and awaits the outcome of the investigation. “If we find that patient protections need further strengthening, we will take action to do so,” spokesman John Burklow said.
AP’s review found that if children were old enough – usually between 5 and 10 – they also were educated about the risks and asked to consent. Sometimes, foster parents or biological parents were consulted; other times not.
“Our policy was to try and contact the (biological) parents because it was fairly common when we got done the foster kid would go back to the parents,” said Dr. Ross McKinney, a pediatrics AIDS expert at Duke University.
Research and foster agencies declined to make foster parents or children in the drug trials available for interviews, or to provide information about individual drug dosages, side effects or deaths, citing medical privacy laws.
Other families who participated in the same drug trials told AP their children mostly benefited but parents needed to carefully monitor potential side effects. Foster children, they said, need the added protection of an independent advocate.
“I don’t believe a foster care parent can do it,” said Vinnie DiPoalo, a New Jersey woman whose 10-year-old adopted son has participated in three AIDS drug trials. “There are informed consents that have to be signed. There are follow-up blood appointments.
“I think that’s the role the advocate should take, because a foster parent may only have this child for three months and then the child moves on and someone needs to be watching all the time,” she said.
Many studies that enlisted foster children involved early Phase I and Phase II research – the riskiest – to determine side effects and safe dosages so children could begin taking adult “cocktails,” the powerful drug combinations that suppress AIDS but can cause bad reactions like rashes and organ damage.
Some of those drugs were approved ultimately for children, such as stavudine and zidovudine. Other medicines were not.
Illinois officials confirmed two or three foster children were approved to participate in a mid-1990s study of dapsone. Researchers hoped the drug would prevent a pneumonia that afflicts AIDS patients.
Researchers reported some children had to be taken off the drug because of “serious toxicity,” others developed rashes, and the rates of death and blood toxicity were significantly higher in children who took the medicine daily, rather than weekly.
At least 10 children died from a variety of causes, including four from blood poisoning, and researchers said they were unable to determine a safe, useful dosage. They said the deaths didn’t appear to be “directly attributable” to dapsone but nonetheless were “disturbing.”
“An unexpected finding in our study was that overall mortality while receiving the study drug was significantly higher in the daily dapsone group. This finding remains unexplained,” the researchers concluded.
Another study involving foster children in the 1990s treated children with different combinations of adult antiretroviral drugs. Among 52 children, there were 26 moderate to severe reactions – nearly all in infants. The side effects included rash, fever and a major drop in infection-fighting white blood cells.
New York City officials defend the decision to enlist foster children en masse, saying there was a crisis in the early 1990s and research provided the best treatment possibilities. Nonetheless, they are changing their policy so they no longer give blanket permission to enroll children in preapproved studies.
“We learned some things from our experience,” said Elizabeth Roberts, assistant commissioner for child and family health at the Administration for Children’s Services. “It is a more individualized review we will be conducting.”
Researchers likewise defend their work, saying they often sat with foster families to explain the risks and benefits, and provided them literature and 24-hour phone numbers.
“We talk about it. Then they come the next time. There is no rush,” explained Dr. Ram Yogev, the chief pediatric AIDS researcher in Chicago whose patients include a large number of foster children.
Kline, the Texas researcher, added: “I never wanted a parent or guardian to ever say ‘yes’ simply because they thought that it was what I wanted them to do. I wanted it to be the right choice for them. I think there is not any single right answer for any family.”
Local Police Stop Dad Walking With His Two Children and DCS Takes Them Away
This is the 28th article in the Tribune’s series on the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services.
By Peter White / Posted by Connie Reguli
SOUTH FULTON, TN—One of the town’s six police officers was waiting at a stop sign in a squad car as Joe Nery and his two kids walked by. The officer made Nery wait for an hour and a half in a church parking lot before two women who drove a black pick up truck with big wheels and tinted windows showed up. They wore T-shirts and jeans.
Claudia Gheorghe-Nery, Franky, and Izabella.
“One was wearing flip flops and the other was wearing tennis shoes. It would be very difficult to believe that someone who works for the state to handle an important matter like this to be dressed so totally inappropriately. They looked just raggedy, you know? I had to take their word because I had three officers in front me ready to tackle me if I put up a fuss or if I wanted to fight for my kids,” Nery said.
He does not know their names because the two women did not show any identification before taking the kids. One of the women flashed a photo on her cell phone of what she said was a court order but she pulled it back before Nery could read it.
They trundled the two kids into their big black truck and left Dad alone in the parking lot. He said they had no booster seat and didn’t give him any paperwork, although he asked for it.
The kids, Izabella, 10, and Franky, 6, have been in foster care since July 20.
On July 21, DCS attorney Marlene Simpson told Obion County Juvenile Court Judge Sam C, Nailling Jr. that there was probable cause for the removal of the children. DCS had gotten an emergency removal order to take the kids because someone had reported the parents to DCS.
In its court petition, DCS said the children were removed for “educational concerns, environmental neglect, and drug exposure concerns”. The parents said those were just excuses and they denied the allegations.
The Tribune has read the report and it is full of innuendo, long on speculation and short on facts. Getting a judge to sign off on an emergency removal order based on an interview while Mom was packing to move is like the story of the boy who cried wolf.
The sleazy landlord
The unnamed witness who reported them was probably their landlord, Joseph Mathews. He was in the process of evicting the family from a rental on 325 Forestdale Ave in South Fulton.
On Wednesday, July 13, Mathews sent Deborah Turnbo to the house. She gave Gheorghe-Nery an ultimatum. “I begged her basically to please let me do what I can until Saturday. She said ‘yes, you have until Saturday but if you’re not out by then I will call child protective services on you’.” She wasn’t out by then and so they did. Turnbo admitted it in a text to Mom.
A legal eviction can take 1-3 weeks. If the landlord wins in General Sessions court, the judge will grant a writ of restitution. Tenants usually have 10 days to vacate. The parents said that they didn’t go to the hearing on June 29th and don’t think their landlord showed up either. In any case they didn’t receive a notice to vacate the property because county sheriffs usually remove you within 48-72 hours and that did not happen.
On July 19, DCS case manager Jesse Cochran showed up at the house around 10 am with two other DCS workers.
“It was clear that I was in the middle of moving due to all the boxes that I had already packed and carried out on the porch,” said Claudia Gheorghe-Nery.
Cochran and his two colleagues invited themselves into the house that was, understandably, in disarray. Gheorghe-Nery explained her situation to them.
Nery was serving an 18-day sentence for an unpaid parking ticket. Mom had to do all the packing herself. Nery got out of jail on July 19 but was not home when DCS interviewed Mom earlier that day.
“During the entire meeting at my home, my children played, interacted with your employees, laughed, introduced pets,” Gheorghe-Nery later wrote in a letter to DCS Commissioner Jennifer Nichols.
That’s in sharp contrast to what Cochran wrote in his report. “The children were observed to be dressed in dirty clothing and covered in dirt. Both children had several bug bites on their arms, legs, and backs,” Cochran said.
Gheorghe-Nery called Cochran’s investigation a pack of lies.
“As the meeting went on I was advised to leave and find a place that’s cleaner; without a car it was rather difficult to find a rapid solution to my problem,” she said.
“There was no investigation done before KIDNAPPING my kids,” she wrote Nichols.
“I still have no hard copies of the charges and investigation of my case,” Gheorghe-Nery said.
In its report to the judge, DCS claimed they didn’t get a full urine specimen from Mom on July 19 but it showed positive for amphetamines and THC. Gheorghe-Nery said she told Cochran that she was taking prescription phentermine and pulled the bottle from her purse and showed him. Cochran did not include that information in his report to the judge.
The Tribune has read the report and it is full of innuendo and “concerns”. Given the circumstances, no reasonable person would conclude the children were in serious danger without further investigation. Cochran promised a second interview but that never happened because DCS seized the kids the day after he interviewed Mom. In hindsight it seems DCS already planned to take the children before they even knocked on the door.
The Child Abuse Hotline collects reports of child abuse from anonymous callers. DCS investigators follow up on those tips to find evidence of serious child abuse. Too often they deliver false or misleading evidence to justify an emergency removal when their “investigation” is actually part of a personal vendetta, as it was in this case.
Gheorghe-Nery wrote DCS Commissioner Jennifer Nichols that her children were never in imminent danger. She said there was no evidence of physical, emotional, neglect, or sexual abuse. In short, DCS had no grounds to take them and she wanted her kids returned immediately.
Later, DCS caseworker Brian Hill wanted the parents to sign a neglect and dependency petition. They refused. It would have given DCS another legal weapon to keep Izabella and Franky instead of returning them to their parents. They did agree to a drug test that both parents passed.
Mom never heard back from Nichols but did get a note from the Customer Relations Unit (complaint department). Following a yearlong investigation into DCS by the Tennessee Tribune, Margie Quin replaced DCS Commissioner Jennifer Nichols on September 1.
“They told us personally that our daughter wanted to come home and she wanted to be with her mom and dad because we’re good parents to them. And my son said the same thing to them,” Gheorghe-Nery said.
Life in Foster Care While Parents Fight DCS in Court
Regarding their custody conditions, the foster home is set up with triple-tier bunk beds. “Basically they eat a lot of hot dogs and pizza,” Gheorghe-Nery said. She said they have seen the children twice since they were taken.
“For the first time in my son’s life, who is 6 years old, we found scabs on his head, his skin is dry as dry can be; he had bites all over his legs and his arms visible to the naked eye. Both children were emotional, crying, asking us not to leave them. My daughter won’t remove the nail polish off her toes, because she said that it reminded her of me and she was happiest with me. I did her nails before she was taken from me,” Gheorghe-Nery said.
Franky Nery, age 6, was taken July 20th and remains in foster care. He has seen his parents twice.
Judge Nailling held a show cause hearing on July 21st. DCS attorney Simpson objected during Nery’s testimony. The judge overruled Simpson and let Nery continue but said that he didn’t want to pull the case out from under the feet of DCS. He set a disposition hearing for August 17th. At that hearing the parents asked for a court-appointed lawyer and the judge scheduled the next court date for September 29th.
“He should have pulled the case out from under her feet. They take kids from a happy environment and for the first time in their lives they are traumatized emotionally, psychologically, and now I see that there is also physical (abuse),” she said.
Unfortunately, Juvenile Court judges, DCS attorneys, and court-appointed lawyers often fail to reunify the families with the children DCS has wrongfully taken. The parents are not in the courtroom very long and then they go home with or without their kids. DCS is like a bad case of poison ivy that never seems to go away.
An ever-present litigant, DCS is always in court and a force to be reckoned with. DCS usually brings multiple staffers to a trial and they often get their way because judges and court personnel simply don’t have the stomach to confront them.
As we have reported, DCS takes into custody about 8,000 kids a year. Many are snatched on the flimsiest of grounds with no actual investigation like Izabella and Franky were.
Rural Obion County has a population of 30,466. According to its official website, Obion County courts provide “fair, courteous, and timely service to every individual and agency having business with Chancery, Circuit, General Sessions & Juvenile Court”. So we know they are big on nice but the jury is still out on whether they will dispense justice in “Case NO. 6675 In The Matter Of Izabella Nery, age 10, and Franky Nery, age 6”.
There is a dark underside to the picture of friendly corn-growing Obion County. Three local policemen, a landlord, his flunky, and several DCS employees worked in concert to seize Izabella and Franky and take them from their parents because being evicted is apparently a serious case of environmental neglect.
“Those kids have gone through an immense amount of distress just so that DCS can make some money on my children. I know exactly what they get paid. I’ve been doing my homework. I know what they get paid and why they take them so quickly,” she said.
Izabella Nery, age 10, won’t wash off the polish on her fingernail and toes. It reminds her of happier times.
Foster care is a booming business in Tennessee. It’s not the boon to the local economy that a prison would be, but it’s a good little racket they have going up there in Northwest Tennessee.
DCS paid out $ 14,333,900 last year to foster parents and other contract service providers like the child collectors who snatched those kids from a church parking lot and the foster parents DCS is paying to feed them hotdogs and pizza.
Don’t be fooled by the lib media trying justify the Aug 8 2022 raid on Trumps home and office in Mar Largo. Although I don’t have the secret code to know what the FBI took from his private residence I do suspect that it included documents and records supporting his Federal law suit against Hillary Clinton.
So first of all here is the link to the story from Politico regarding the declassification of all documents repeated tot the RussiaGate scandal which dominated the attention of our Washington lawmakers during the entire Trump administration.
The story reads:
It’s unclear which documents Trump has ordered declassified less than 24 hours before he leaves office. He cited the decision as based on the results of a Dec. 30 review he asked the Justice Department to perform. The department presented him with a “binder of materials” that remain classified, he said in a memorandum issued on Tuesday. Trump said he then asked for the documents to be declassified to “the maximum extent possible.”
The FBI responded that it believed that all of the materials should remain classified, but that some were particularly crucial and should at least be redacted.
“I have determined to accept the redactions proposed for continued classification by the FBI in that January 17 submission,” Trump said in his memo. “I hereby declassify the remaining materials in the binder. This is my final determination under the declassification review and I have directed the Attorney General to implement the redactions proposed in the FBI’s January 17 submission and return to the White House an appropriately redacted copy.”
Notice that the FBI objected and over that objection Trump declassified even the documents in the binder. I say “Awesome”. We need that kind of transparency.
So we know the FBI was not happy with Trumps unmasking of their investigation which targeted him before and after the investigation.
Now fast forward to 2022. The war rages on. On March 24 2022 Trump filed a lawsuit against Clinton and other defendants — among them John Podesta, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Marc Elias, Michael Sussmann, Glenn Simpson, Igor Danchenko, Rodney Joffe, the Democratic National Committee, and the law firm Perkins Coie this lawsuit alleged a RICO action against Trump as early as 2016. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants falsified evidence, deceived law enforcement, and exploited access to highly sensitive data sources all to cripple Trumps bid for presidency. And the Clinton intentionally shielded herself behind third parties.
The defendants are in the midst of trying to dismiss this lawsuit for failure to meet the four year statute of imitations.
I have read the entire Trump v Clinton lawsuit which you can find here. The facts are laid out in perfect sequence and detail how Hillary Clinton and the DNC players used private funds, campaign money, and taxpayer resources to undermine an election. No lawsuits are search warrants have been executed against those defendants.
Everyone should know by now that two people responsible, perhaps the lowest hanging fruit, were indicted: Sussmann and Clinesmith.
Sussmann was acquitted in May of this year on the allegations that he had lied to the FBI. Sussmann, a prominent Democrat attorney, made a report to the FBI in 2016 that Trumps computers were tied to the Alfa Bank in Russia. He did not tell the FBI that he had been actively involved with Neustar executive Rodney Joffe to hack into the Trump tower and White House computers to fabricate a tie to Russia that did not exist. See paragraph five of the Trump lawsuit.
Neustar, in case you did not know, is the technology company that handles all of the Verizon data including your phone call and text data.
Sussmann was acquitted by the jury but that does not mean he is innocent. It merely means that there was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he intentionally lied to the FBI.
FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith admitted that he doctored an email which removed acknowledgement that Carter Page was a government operative. This was crucial in the early stages of this charade and this intentional false information triggered the fake FISA warrant. Clinesmith was out in probation for a year.
So here we are in August 2022 and the Department of Justice under the Biden administration raided the home of President Trump. Was it really classified documents or was it the evidence for the civil suit which had already been declassified.
Now you might say hmmm. The president declassified documents to bolster his civil lawsuit against his opponent? That might be a valid concern if it weren’t so egregious. Reading all 108 pages of the lawsuit will take you a hot minute BUT it’s honestly better than a novel. It lays it out in perfect sequence. Perhaps I will do a talk through that in a video.
On June 30, 2022 the United States Supreme Court filed an opinion in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency which significantly curtailed the authority of the EPA to restrict the production of energy in existing power plants relying on coal.
For years I have screamed out, “the problem with government is no one stays in their own lane”. Meaning that the judiciary acts like a legislature, the agencies act like law makers and law enforcement, and law enforcement acts like judges.. No one stays within the limits of their constitutional boundaries.
The decision in WV v. EPA deals directly with a bureaucratic agency acting like legislators and law enforcement. In 2015 (Obama), the EPA enacted that Clean Power Plant rule which severely restricted emissions from this nation’s power plants. (Reminding you, of course, that the liberals also want everyone to drive electric cars which depend on power generated by these plants.)
This move by the EPA hit the proverbial nerve of major power producers including those in the state of West Virginia. The goal of these EPA regulations was to shut down coal production in the United States and shift to natural gas and “renewables”, i.e., wind and solar. For the state of West Virginia, this was like sticking their head in the guillotine. The year following this EPA decision, coal production dropped in WV by 20 million tons: an economic blow to WV.
The Trump administration repealed the Clean Power Plant rule in 2017, by the time this case came to the Supreme Court, the administration had changed again to democrat control.
Looking to the SCOTUS decision the syllabus explains that the Agency determined that the interpretive question raised by the Clean Power Plan fell under the major questions doctrine. Under that doctrine, it determined, a clear statement is necessary for a court to conclude that Congress intended to delegate authority “of this breadth to regulate a fundamental sector of the economy.” It found none.
In other words, this executive branch agency could not rely on a vague statute to give itself broad regulatory authority that had not otherwise been approved by Congress.
CNN report states this: Kirti Datla, an attorney for Earthjustice, a nonprofit focused on litigating climate issues, said this case paves the way for Republican-led states and fossil fuel companies to challenge current and future EPA rules on planet-warming emissions.
“I think the biggest takeaway is that the court produced an opinion that did exactly what the challengers [GOP-led states and coal companies] wanted,” Datla said.
In its opinion, the court cut back agency authority by invoking the Major Questions Doctrine — a ruling that will impact the federal government’s authority to regulate in other areas of climate policy, as well as regulation of the internet and worker safety. It says that the biggest issues should be decided by Congress itself, not agencies like the EPA.
“Prior to today, the court would look at [an agency] and say ‘this decision is within your lane and expertise and we’re going to defer to your technical decision here,'” said Jay Duffy, an attorney and expert on power plant emissions at the Clean Air Task Force. “Today, unless the actual rule you have chosen has been clearly authorized by the Congress, you don’t have the authority to do it.”
DOES THIS RULING EFFECT OTHER EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCIES
AT THE STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL?
Many citizens have faced frustrations with executive branch agencies at the state and federal level where the agencies create their own rules, regulations, and policies that are not otherwise authorized by lawmakers. For years I battled the overreach of the Department of Children’s Services in the State of Tennessee who made their own rules and kept them secret until they needed to wield some power over an unsuspecting parent. Although the Supreme Court ruling does NOT give us significant power to rely on this to curtail other agencies, it provides a strong argument that executive branch agencies cannot make rules that limit the lives and businesses of citizens without an Act of Congress.
It looks likes Congress needs to get back to work running this Country.
SCORE for personal liberty against lying, cheating District Attorneys (and other prosecuting government attorneys like CPS) – The Fifth Circuit entered an opinion on May 3, 2022. See Wearry v. Foster, 20-30406, 5th Cir. In this opinion, the prosecutor was denied absolute immunity when he proffered the fabricated testimony of a juvenile to prosecute a defendant for murder. It took years to undo, in fact the case started in 1998 and this opinion is dated May 2022. Twenty-four years and the case is not over. The plaintiff, if he is even alive, will likely have several more years of fighting to get to trial.
42 USC Sec. 1983 is supposed to provide relief for ordinary citizens whose rights have been trampled by “state actors”, i.e., anyone who works on behalf of, under the employment of, or under the title of a government function. In this case, the lawsuit was brought against prosecutor and police officer for the investigatory acts of conspiring to bring false testimony to trial.
Connie Reguli in Washington DC
The Opinion described the circumstances like this:
Nothing in the story the defendants invented was based on information the child had provided to the Detective or the District Attorney. As Wearry’s complaint plainly puts it, “Perrilloux and Foster made an intentional and deliberate decision to fabricate a narrative.” In the District Attorney and Detective’s narrative, Ashton had gone to a “musician appreciation” function at his church on the night of the murder. According to the false narrative, as he walked home alone, he heard footsteps and hid under a house. Following their script, Ashton testified that he then saw Wearry throw Walber’s cologne bottle into a ditch and get into Walber’s car. In reality, Ashton had been at a strawberry festival with his older sister in Ponchatoula miles away from the scene on the night of Walber’s murder. Ashton had spent the night with his sister in Hammond without coming back to Livingston Parish. Ashton had never seen Wearry before Foster and Perrilloux presented Wearry’s photo to him, and Ashton “had no personal knowledge” of any facts implicating Wearry in the murder, including the fabrications invented by the defendants. In short, Foster and Perrilloux knowingly “provided the adolescent with a completely fabricated story” and intimidated and coerced him to adopt and repeat the story in his testimony. 1
Wearry fought the system for years before his criminal conviction was overturned by the Louisiana Supreme Court. It was only then that he could seek monetary damages for the abuse brought upon him by the government (tax payer funded) employees.
For me, someone who knows the governments abusive tactics violation civil rights everyday of the year, the 33 page opinion is a delightful read. The three judge panel provides an extensive analysis of absolute immunity, qualified immunity, and Monell. These three legal principles are the Damocles of civil rights actions. The opinion acknowledges that “worthy civil rights claims are often never brought to trial,” because of these three doctrines. The overlap and intertwining of these principles “frequently conspire to turn winnable claims into losing ones.”
After the majority of the panel agreed with the District Court that the actions of the prosecuting attorney did NOT afford him absolute immunity, the dissenting opinion found that governing precedent prevented the Court from granting this relief, even though he did not agree. Judge James C. Ho opined this:
“This case illustrates that conspiracy in action. Under the doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity, Wearry cannot bring suit against the prosecutor or the police officer who wrongly put him on death row. And that is so even if we assume (as we must at this stage) that the prosecutor and police officer engaged in a malicious campaign to coerce false testimony against him. Nor could Wearry sue the municipality that employed the prosecutor and police officer, because neither of them was operating pursuant to an official municipal policy or custom. See id. at 691 (“Congress did not intend municipalities to be held liable unless action pursuant to official municipal policy . . . caused [the] constitutional tort”); id. (“[A] municipality cannot be held liable under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory.”). The good news for anyone outraged by this state of affairs is that the American people have a remedy. Congress decides what our laws shall be. Courts merely interpret and apply those laws. So if a court applies a rule of law that seems wrong and unjust, the people can demand that the legislative branch fix it. In sum, Congress can abolish qualified immunity, absolute prosecutorial immunity, and Monell. And it can do so anytime it wants to.”
Judge Ho called the problem one of the “court’s own making”, i.e, inventing qualified immunity which added a burden to the Plaintiff’s prove. Not only does the plaintiff have to show that his constitutional right was violated, but that it was clearly established at the time the act was committed.
I know from litigation experience, that the plaintiff is faced with razor sharp distinctions in the facts of the case.
Wearry is a good move by the Fifth Circuit Court, it is likely that the defendants will push this to the Supreme Court. We will keep an eye on it.
Another civil rights lawsuit has emerged over privatized probation. The reporter is clear and succinct. Probationers are kept on perpetual probation to keep the fees flowing. Now they are clever enough to use names that sound like official government offices but they are all a human cash scheme.
In West Tennessee Judge Bell wa sanctioned for setting up his in-law (let’s see brother in law maybe) in the probate probation business and then putting more misdemeanants on probation.
Of course Judge Bell was also the one overseeing compliance with probation.
In Rutherford County Tenn a more egregious scheme was uncovered with Providence probation. Overcharging thousands of citizens without oversight.
The 2018 Tenn Comptrollers report is found here. Finding inadequate oversight, policies, and supervision:
I will supplement this report with some additional information later.
Over my 28 year history of working with families in situations critical to protecting their liberty interest to raise their children, I have many times thought that the parents deserved a jury trial of their parental rights were at stake.
Do not be deceived, jury trials are not perfect. I have seen judges rewrite jury instructions contrary to the law. In parental rights case we also have a set of troubling vague laws that can easily sway a judge or jury if they don’t like the parent or do t understand the law.
Juries are not supposed to be swayed by emotion, but emotion is always the states objective when they have a case with a kid. Since the prosecution will go first, the state agency will have plenty of chance to blab about what a bad parent is in front of them. There will be little sympathy for parents struggling with substance abuse or domestic violence.
We need more specific laws on matters such as “failure to provide suitable housing” or “failure to cure the conditions that lead to removal.” Tenn Courts say that failure to provide suitable housing is not just a home, but a job, a car, childcare, and other middle class characteristics.
Michgan has made a giant leap. However, o am thinking that attorneys for parents will not recommend jury trial. First of all, it’s harder. Second, more time consuming. Third, the care required to prepare you evidence is heightened.
However I applaud Michigan and the brave folks who got this passed. Let’s carry this to all states. It’s progress.
In May 2022, the State of Michigan adopted a rule to provide for jury trials in juvenile proceedings.
Mich. Ct. R. 3.911 As amended through May 18, 2022 Rule 3.911 – Jury (A) Right. The right to a jury in a juvenile proceeding exists only at the trial.
(B) Jury Demand. A party who is entitled to a trial by jury may demand a jury by filing a written demand with the court within:
(1) 14 days after the court gives notice of the right to jury trial, or
(2) 14 days after an appearance by an attorney or lawyer-guardian ad litem, whichever is later, but no later than 21 days before trial.
The court may excuse a late filing in the interest of justice.
(C) Jury Procedure. Jury procedure in juvenile cases is governed by MCR 2.508-2.516, except as provided in this subrule.
(1) In a delinquency proceeding,
(a) each party is entitled to 5 peremptory challenges, and
(b) the verdict must be unanimous.
(2) In a child protective proceeding,
(a) each party is entitled to 5 peremptory challenges, with the child considered a separate party, and
(b) a verdict in a case tried by 6 jurors will be received when 5 jurors agree.
(3) Two or more parties on the same side, other than a child in a child protective proceeding, are considered a single party for the purpose of peremptory challenges.
(a) When two or more parties are aligned on the same side and have adverse interests, the court shall allow each such party represented by a different attorney 3 peremptory challenges.
(b) When multiple parties are allowed more than 5 peremptory challenges under this subrule, the court may allow the opposite side a total number of peremptory challenges not to exceed the number allowed to the multiple parties.
(4) In a designated case, jury procedure is governed by MCR 6.401-6.420.
I watched the very first video posted by city commissioner David Oh from Philadelphia. He was shocked and distressed over what he heard. That was 2017. I, however, I was already well trenched in the whole dark world of child protective services.
The stories are the same. The state social workers lie in reports, they get secret ex parte orders, they refuse to follow their own policies, they refuse relative placement, they flip case work deed multiple times cause if more delay, they refuse to turn over records, and they constantly tell state legislators that they don’t have brought money.
The Philadelphia special commission found that in 2017, the City of Philly removed more children per capita than any major city in the US. Three times more that New York and four times more than Chicago. The commission was set with the task to determine why. The committee divided itself into subcommittees on the following topics: policy and procedure and DHS and family court. Through case studies, public forums, surveys, and a diverse committee membership, they made several recommendations.
Now is the time for me to say that I agree wholeheartedly with their recommendations and I have set forth the very same recommendations for years. That’s okay though. I am one person, one voice, one attorney, one advocate, and one lobbyist. I am excited and encouraged that the rumble for reform has risen to the next tier. Here are how their ideas shook out:
On Policy and Procedure: The commission found faulty reporting and wrongful removals. This was due to several issues. Poverty is interpreted as neglect. Neglect has no standard definition. Children who could remain in their home with support were removed. Record keeping and reports were faulty. Children who were witnesses to domestic violence in the home were removed which caused more trauma for the child and hindered the reporting of domestic violence. Mandating reporting removes the reasonable discretion of professionals. Families were not provided adequate notice of their constitutional rights including Miranda rights against self-incrimination. Siblings were confiscated at birth when a parent had a history with the system without an assessment of the ability of the parent. Minorities were being disproportionately impacted. And centralized registries were being used without due process.
On DHA and Family Court: Parents were not adequately represented once they entered the system. Children’s true interest and constitutional rights were not being represented. Family court systems were closed and secretive. Cases would linger in the system without resolution.
Some of the recommendations ring a familiar tone and must be applied broadly across the United States:
The list boils down to something like this:
The Courts should be open for public viewing. This helps to provide citizen and press oversight. The purveyors and can be given restrictions on the names and identify of the children and parents could move the court to close the proceeding.
All social workers must wear body cams and record all interviews and meetings.
All cases must be completed on a timely basis.
Child representation needs to follow the model of the ABA (American Bar Association) and not the historic “best interest” model.
Parents need quality representation and a multidisciplinary approach to resolving their involvement with CPS.
Families need to have effective counsel earlier in the process. The commission found that waiting until the parents were already facing litigation was too late. They needed earlier representation and an early Miranda warning.
That the refusal to cooperate with CPS alone should never be a reason for removal of a child.
That neglect needed a clearer definition and should not be a reason for removal unless there was sufficient evidence to show harm to the child. Most of the neglect cases in Philly were poverty related. The commission declared that poverty in and of itself was never a cause for removal.
The determinations of capacity and fitness to parent needed to consist of independent assessments.
Mandatory reporting needed to end.
So here were are again. Two thousand twenty-years B.C. in the United States of America and we are at the same precipice that we have been at for the last ten years at least. Those who have worked in the area of child welfare consistently since 2002 have seen the effects of a incompetent and grossly powerful agency
I look forward to seeing how Philly does this and will be reaching out to these lawmakers and leaders to more support. Thank you David Oh and Richard Wexler for being brave warriors in this battle.
By Connie Reguli – Cancelled by the Establishment – Invested in Your Well-being. May 27, 2022.
Connie Reguli (right) woth amazing advocate Lauren from Maine. In Washington DC
I would say I operated different than most attorneys in family law … I cared what happened, I was concerned about children in Courtrooms, I advised my clients on the risk of being too emotional and on being unemotional, and at the end of the day I wanted what was ‘best for the children’. However, it is an oxymoron to speak about the best interests of the child in the adversarial family court realm.
I hear so many people say…my lawyer would not defend me…my lawyer would not put on my evidence…my lawyer did not care…my lawyer did nothing. I am not here to defend lackluster representation, but I am here to say blaming lawyer is not the solution. A recent United States Supreme Court decision, Shinn v Ramirez, the Supreme Court said yes it is the luck of the draw that you had not just one but two crappy attorneys, you cannot do a habeus corpus petition on ineffective assistance of counsel. Done ✅.
However, that is not the end of the story. Attorneys also have to work with the lump of clay called your life that you give them. In the context of family and parent-child relationships depending on the “right” attorney to make it right is an ad hominem argument.
From a lawyers view…people come to us with a mess that evolved out of the imperfections in our clients lives. They end up in the imperfect court system. Which is adversarial by design. It’s a war zone. The biggest weapons, and sometimes the best told lie wins. Lawyers only have so many tools and none of them are meant to resolve anything. Only possible result is win or lose. We can’t undo the clients history so it’s the best spin. And then of course it’s about money. Lawyers have so many expenses and so much risk that the costs are driven up. Part of the court game it wearing out the other side, emotionally or financially. They are paid to “do a job” they are paid to engage in a battlefield.
And clients are ill prepared. They don’t understand the system and judge have no patience for stumbling memories. Cross examination is intended to trip you up so a judge can call you a liar – they will use the judicial vernacular “lacks credibility” but all the same – they call you a liar. And in the world of court – the judge has the final say as to whether or not you are a liar.
I have to get you to turn your heads directly into this perverted and demonic snare.
The best I can I will help you resolve, negotiate, and move past the chaos or unfold the mysteries of litigation. If you rely on a fair and impartial judge who will render a decision on the best interest of your child you are waking blindly in a minefield.
I also intend to train an army of advocates to help.
You can contact me to consult on these issues. God bless.
bible.com/bible/1/exo.10.10.KJV
Radical Tennessee - Radically Accountable and Radically Free 