by Janet Phelan
The first family pet that my sister Judith killed was my cat, Fritz. My parents had been caring for both of my cats, Fritz and Colette, while I was away at grad school. I had returned but had not yet settled into permanent digs. Judy had been residing with my parents in the Naples Island family home for some time at that juncture.
Judy had experienced a complete breakdown, of sorts, and her then-husband, Neil, had simply dropped her off at Mom and Dad's—dropped her off and washed his hands of her. It had not been a happy union and Neil was apparently all too glad to use this as an excuse to escape.
Judith had decompensated rather quickly. Usually impeccably and fashionably dressed and groomed, she began to appear in mismatched clothing and with uncombed hair. Her weight, always a concern for her, shot up dramatically. An odor emanated from her room and I doubted she was even bathing. Even worse--she had stopped making sense.
At the point that she killed my cat, she had ostensibly pulled out of it. A toxic dose of medication, which she was taking for a psychiatric problem, was blamed and when the dose was adjusted she seemed to improve. Her former wit and vivacity returned and she began again to dress again like a fashion plate. But something had changed. She seemed to harbor a dark resentment towards the family, blaming us for her plight. Other, less immediately noticeable changes were to manifest soon.
I had stopped by the house to pick up some belongings. My parents were selling the house and had plans to move away. The housing market was booming and they figured to take the money and invest in a cheaper house in a less upscale location, and to commence their retirement. Judith, who had a LCSW, was having trouble holding a job and was moving with them. To her consternation, I was not.
I was picking up some things from what had at one time been my bedroom when Judith walked in. “I put your cat to sleep,” she announced.
It took a moment for her words to register. I felt a cold horror grip my heart, the likes of which I had never before experienced.
“Why did you do that?” I managed to get out.
Her answer confirmed my worst suspicions. She had no reasons. “He was sleeping,” was all she said. Fritz had been with me for about twelve years. I did not realize at that time how this depraved act by my sister pointed towards the future.
Mom, Dad and Judy soon moved to Temecula, in Riverside County.
While Judith was purportedly out of the woods in terms of overt psychosis, her actions brought my father continued bewilderment and anguish. During my frequent visits to the family home on Gatewood Way, I repeatedly saw Judith baiting, confrontational, as her behavior began to border on utter hatred of our father. On a couple of occasions, during what was now an interminable and continuous argument, Judith threw back her head and howled like an animal.
It couldn't have been a happy situation for her—forty plus years old, twice divorced, with considerable academic achievements--to be living with her parents in a sleepy little town like Temecula. She had a new car, she indulged her desires for new clothes, new hairdos, pedicures and more, but nothing was mitigating the indignity she was apparently feeling for needing to live with her parents. She was brilliant, or so she repeatedly asserted. She should be on top of the game, not on the skids. And increasingly, she blamed us for her ill fortune.
One day, she drove up to see me in Long Beach. I had an apartment and was living with my boyfriend. She confessed to me that she “couldn't stand “ living with the folks anymore. She asked if she could move in with me. She was desperate, she said.
Looking at her pale, anguished face, I began to soften. We had never gotten along, but maybe we could make it work. I didn't want to see her suffer. And for a moment, I almost forgot what she had done to Fritz.
She must have seen the sympathy in my face, and moved quickly into the driver's seat. “Good,” she said. “I'll go get my stuff. We are going to have to first of all develop some ground rules here. Rule one—No men.”
“Judy,” I said. “You know I am living here with John. I am not going to separate from him so that you can live here. I am sorry, this isn't going to work out.”
Dad was feeling the pressure, too. He used to come up to Long Beach once a month, to lunch with his fellow journalists, an aging crew of salty reporters who called themselves “The Over-The-Hill” Club. After their luncheon, he would typically drop by my apartment for a visit. Sometimes he would take a nap on my couch and I would fix him dinner.
I remember one visit, in which he was distinctly agitated. He was talking, as he often did, about my sister, how difficult she was, and how living with her was destroying his golden years. But this time, he was also talking about the future. And he was worried.
“I am afraid to die and leave your mother alone with your sister,” he stated bluntly. “Judy is capable of anything. I want to put her out," he continued, "but your mother won't allow it."
I puzzled over the implications of his statement. I certainly did not know that after Dad died, my sister Judy was going to try to kill our mother.
I picked up the phone around 4 pm. Dad's lung cancer had taken a dramatic turn for the worse. He wasn't expected to last more than a few days.
I hung up the phone and went to tell John. We started packing, throwing a few things into an overnight bag. I worried a bit about what to do with the cats, Zack and Bunkie. We were just getting ready to head out the door when suddenly I felt like I couldn't breathe. I sat down, gulping for air. The attack subsided in about ten minutes. I then called my Mom, to let her know we were on our way.
“Oh Jannie,” she said, her voice almost inaudible. “Your Dad just passed ten minutes ago.”
After the burial, the small group of mourners headed back to the house. I was devastated. The larger then life , brilliant and iconoclastic man who had been my father was no more. I couldn't have guessed that without him, Judith would begin to prey on both of us—first financially and then with murderous intent.
Judy sat down beside me on the couch. “I'm glad he's dead,” was all she said.
After Dad died, I began to come down to Temecula to visit my mother more and more frequently. We had always been very close and our friendship began to change. She was becoming more vulnerable. Looking back, I am not sure exactly when I started feeling less like her child and more like her protector.
Judith was becoming increasingly secretive. A couple of years later, Mom chose to retire (she had kept up a small private practice as a clinical psychologist) and Judith decided that Amalie shouldn't drive anymore. She got rid of Mom's car. She had herself placed as a joint signor on Mom's bank accounts, as well. Money began to fly away. I did not figure out how until years later, when I was reviewing some family accounts. Judith had been forging my endorsement on checks made out to me. She had apparently been requesting regularly that Mom write me checks, checks I did not request or even know about. She then turned around and forged my endorsement on these checks and deposited them into her Wells Fargo account. The tip off was the cancellation stamp on the back of the checks—they had gone into Wells Fargo. It appears that Judith stole upwards of sixty thousand dollars in this manner in a short time.
Attached are two examples of these checks.
In 2000, Judy had gotten another social work job and lost it very quickly. Mom went into the hospital with a broken hip. Mom's dog was put to sleep. When Mom finally admitted to me, after a couple of years of denial, that there was a struggle over the dog, the day Judy had come home angry from being fired, and that Judy had pushed her and that was when she fell and broke her hip, it was too late for me to get Judy out. Mom was under a conservatorship, and conservator Melodie Scott was treating Judy like the golden girl. Within a week of this shocking admission, I was rushing my mother to the ER. She was nearly dead.
It was my habit to call Amalie every day, sometimes more than once. I had noticed on my visit the week before that she didn't seem to be doing very well. I was worried that she might be sick. So when I called her that morning in June and she said: “I am very ill and no one is paying attention to me,” I hurried down to Temecula.
I found her in a dreadful state. She could hardly walk. She was not making much sense. And Judy was acting like nothing was going on.
It took me over an hour to get her out to the car so I could take her to the hospital. She was so weak she didn't think she could walk to the curb, where my car was parked. She wanted to rest first, because it was too hard to walk a few steps. While Amalie was in her early eighties, she was still quite active. Every visit, we would take long walks around the outskirts of Temecula. She never had had trouble like this.
Once in the car, she forgot where we were going. I was so worried. Something was terribly wrong and I was relieved when we pulled into the parking lot at Rancho Springs hospital.
Her blood pressure was dangerously elevated. Her confusion seemed to be clearing up.I was glad about that but also worried. What had caused the blanket of confusion to descend upon her? Had she been drugged? Worse then drugged? She was admitted to the hospital and shortly thereafter I drove back to Temecula.
Back at the house, I checked my mother's pill bottles. At leat part of the problem became immediately clear. No one had bothered to give my mother, a cardiac patient, her heart medicine for at least six weeks. Judith and Linda Garcia, a caregiver hired by conservator Melodie Scott, were the responsible parties.
I called the police. They arrived and all hell broke out. Linda Garcia fled the house, never to be seen by me again. Melodie Scott called and told the police to lock me up, that I was crazy. Judy went and barricaded herself in her room. The police counted the pills, took my statement and left.
As it turned out, Mom was taken into surgery and a pacemaker was implanted in her chest. Just prior to the surgery, her pulse was recorded at 37. Her heart was failing her.
And within twenty four hours I was served with notice that Scott had gone to court and applied for (and was granted) a Temporary Restraining Order against me. In her declaration to the court, she stated that I had “unnecessarily” transported my mother to the hospital emergency room, thereby causing her emotional distress.
This was going to be easy, or so I thought. I would ask the judge to subpoena the medical records and this would be put to rest. He would then know the truth, that my mother's life was saved by that trip to the ER.
But this is not America anymore. Not the America of equal protection under the law and justice for all. And I was about to get my wake up call.
I went to court on August 8 for the hearing on the Restraining Order. I am documented as being in court when court opened and leaving when court closed. The RO was never called to hearing and I was permanently restrained from my mother without due process, an utter violation of my Constitutional rights.
In addition to the attached letter by Special Agent Jack Smith, the minute order issued by Judge Stephen Cunnison stands as witness to the Constitutional violation. The minute order reveals no parties present when Cunnison signed the order, in the safety and seclusion of his chambers.
Mom was doomed. For a period, Melodie Scott moved her from facility to facility, like a precious gem in a shell game.
With measured cruelty, I was not informed that my mother had died until weeks after she had been buried. Given the history here, I can only believe that foul play was involved and that I was not told she had died because I would have demanded an autopsy and a toxicology exam.
Scott used the RO as an excuse to terminate Trust payments to me. At that time I was on disability and was critically dependent on the trust fund established by my parents. First I lost my car and then I became homeless. I was shortly thereafter divested of most of the disability monies. My weight dropped from 165 lbs to under 100 in the first year after the trust monies were cut off. Staying alive got tougher.
Judith, however, did quite well. She moved up to the Bay area, to Oakland. The source of the monies used to buy my sister's silence and propensities towards murder soon became obvious. Mom had had two checking accounts, one at Washington Mutual and one at B of A as well as a couple of B of A credit cards. While Mom was still at home, in the intervening months between the establishment of the conservatorship and her trip to the ER, Judith had been charging up a storm. When I would come to visit, I noticed that several packages would show up every day, coming in from catalogue companies. Several unopened packages would at the same time be returned by Judy. It appears that these purchases were being charged back to the B of A account and a third party was paying off the purchases. This is notably similar to the judge/loan scam being run by numerous judges in the Southern California area (and likely elsewhere). The initial article exposing this bribery/payoff scheme was published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel in September of 2009.
In this case, we are seeing what constitutes murder for money.
Shortly before Mom nearly died on that June day, Judy nearly confessed to me. “I'm getting a lot of money from Melodie Scott,”she said during one of my visits.
“What's that for, Judy?” I asked.
“Hush money,” she said.
“What the hell for?” I demanded. “Is this about what's happening now?” Melodie Scott had been making our lives very difficult.
“No,” she said. “It's for what is going to happen later.” And then clammed up.
Judy was to become covertly aggressive against me,as well. Shortly thereafter, Judith started to send me checks. She told me that Melodie Scott was selling the house and she wanted me to hire a lawyer to contest this. The $2700 was purportedly for an attorney retainer.
The first check came in without the amount written in. Puzzled by this, I contacted the bank which confirmed that such a check was nonnegotiable. Judy promptly issued a second check. She was so insistent that I only cash it at a particular branch that I became suspicious. I contacted the bank, asking about that check number. Judith, it turns out, had reported the check stolen. I have attached copies of these two checks, slightly tattered by time.
Bye bye mama, then bye bye sister. And Judith would have gotten all the money in the estate.
Melodie Scott came under scrutiny by the California Professional Fiduciaries Bureau and her license was, for a period of time, contested. She finally achieved licensure in late 2010 but by that time my Trust had achieved a new trustee—Riverside County.
After a stint working as a reporter at The American's Bulletin in Oregon I left the US. I was soon offered a job teaching journalism in Canada. The Canadian government denied my work visa and I came to Mexico.
I also filed a lawsuit against Scott. Three judges were consecutively and hastily removed from the case after I researched and reported on their suspicious loan history--Commissioner McCoy, Judge Sharon Waters and Judge Gary Tranbarger. The suit was ultimately dismissed in a hearing which was not legally noticed. Judge Stephen Cunnison came back from retirement to ensure the demise of my suit and in his now emblematic manner, he issued another legally void order. When I discovered that "Hangin' Judge" Cunnison was back on the case, I tried to have him removed. In his response he stated that I should have kicked him off a long while back. Actually, I had tried to back in 2002 but he had refused to step down.
The new trustee has filed an accounting and I requested to see the distributions to Judith. The attorney for the Trustee, Toni Eggebraaten, replied that she would send me copies of the checks, after blacking out the bank cancellation information as well as the name of the payee.
Of course, a check without a bank cancellation cannot be affirmed as even having been negotiated. A check without payee information cannot be conclusively determined as having been sent to that payee, who is in this matter, Judith.
Eggebraaten has also refused to send me the bank statements. In her response to my request for discovery, the Trustee has stated that the bank statements will not be released because she has pooled the Phelan estate with other monies she is handling and to release these records to me would violate other people's privacy. The law strictly prohibits such pooling of separate estates. And as there are peripheral indications in the accountings that other monies, such as for rent, are being given to Judith (but not being accounted for) it would not be legally sound for the Trustee to give me evidence of her own criminal activity.
Fraud marches on, relentlessly. The Trustee is now positioning to shut down my part of the Trust, which is necessary to my continued survival, as I am living abroad without a work visa. Her reasoning for so doing is so far fetched that it can only be seen as further retaliation. And for what? For loving and honoring my mother? For reporting on judges laundering money through their property loans, for reporting on the deadly Section 817 of the Patriot Act and the ongong attacks on others through conservatorship court? Is it such a crime now to be a loving daugher and a diligent reporter?
In Germany in the thirties and forties a number of Jews chose to sell out their own for reasons of personal safety and security. Many such Jews, particularly those in leadership positions, such as much of the rabbinate, were allowed to leave Germany unscathed. Other Jew-rats became capos in the concentration camps, responsible for punishing and inflicting injury on their fellow prisoners in return for privileges, food and life.
I no longer need to imagine the horror of such betrayal. I have experienced it, first-hand.
For a further discussion of Special Agent Jack Smith and the federal involvement in Amalie's death, you are referred to this link:
Friday, April 29, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
- This year, the first wave of baby boomers are turning 65 – and with increased age comes increased risk of developing Alzheimer's disease.
- Our new report, "Generation Alzheimer's: The Defining Disease of the Baby Boomers," sheds light on a crisis that is no longer emerging – but here.
- Many baby boomers will spend their retirement years either with Alzheimer's or caring for someone who has it.
- An estimated 10 million baby boomers will develop Alzheimer's.
- Starting this year, more than 10,000 baby boomers a day will turn 65. As these baby boomers age, one of out of eight of them will develop Alzheimer’s – a devastating, costly, heartbreaking disease. Increasingly for these baby boomers, it will no longer be their grandparents and parents who have Alzheimer’s – it will be them.
- "Alzheimer’s is a tragic epidemic that has no survivors. Not a single one," said Harry Johns, president and CEO of the Alzheimer’s Association. "It is as much a thief as a killer. Alzheimer’s will darken the long-awaited retirement years of the one out of eight baby boomers who will develop it. Those who will care for these loved ones will witness, day by day, the progressive and relentless realities of this fatal disease. But we can still change that if we act now."
- According to the new Alzheimer’s Association report, "Generation Alzheimer’s," it is expected that 10 million baby boomers will either die with or from Alzheimer’s, the only cause of death among the top 10 in America without a way to prevent, cure or even slow its progression. But, while Alzheimer’s kills, it does so only after taking everything away, slowly stripping an individual’s autonomy and independence. Even beyond the cruel impact Alzheimer’s has on the individuals with the disease, Generation Alzheimer’s also details the negative cascading effects the disease places on millions of caregivers. Caregivers and families go through the agony of losing a loved one twice: first to the ravaging effects of the disease and then, ultimately, to actual death.
- "Most people survive an average of four to six years after a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease, but many can live as long as 20 years with the disease. As the disease progresses, the person with dementia requires more and more assistance with everyday tasks like bathing, dressing, eating and household activities," said Beth Kallmyer, senior director of Constituent Relations for the Alzheimer’s Association. "This long duration often places increasingly intensive care demands on the nearly 15 million family members and friends who provide unpaid care, and it negatively affects their health, employment, income and financial security."
- In addition to the human toll, over the next 40 years Alzheimer’s will cost the nation $20 trillion, enough to pay off the national debt and still send a $20,000 check to every man, woman and child in America. And while every 69 seconds someone in America develops Alzheimer’s disease today, by 2050 someone will develop the disease every 33 seconds - unless the federal government commits to changing the Alzheimer’s trajectory.
- "Alzheimer’s – with its broad ranging impact on individuals, families, Medicare and Medicaid - has the power to bring the country to its financial knees," said Robert J. Egge, vice president of Public Policy of the Alzheimer’s Association. "But when the federal government has been focused, committed and willing to put the necessary resources to work to confront a disease that poses a real public health threat to the nation – there has been great success. In order to see the day where Alzheimer’s is no longer a death sentence, we need to see that type of commitment with Alzheimer’s."
- The full text of the Alzheimer’s Association’s "Generation Alzheimer’s" report can be viewed at www.alz.org/boomers.
The Alzheimer's Association is the world’s leading voluntary health organization in Alzheimer’s care, support and research.
Our mission is to eliminate Alzheimer’s disease through the advancement of research; to provide and enhance care and support for all affected; and to reduce the risk of dementia through the promotion of brain health.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Saturday, April 23, 2011
"Under Colorado law, the courts are supposed to follow a hierarchical list when choosing a guardian: Spouses, adult children and family friends all rank higher on that list than professional guardians. . . . Stewart followed none of these procedures . . . . 'It's criminal what they've done to me and my son,' Letty said. 'How could this go on in America? All my rights have been taken away. . . . They've taken my money and keep me from seeing my son when he's done nothing wrong.'"
Read it all here =>>BlondJustice.0rg
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Russell L. Blaylock, M.D. submitted by Lisa
In a previous essay, I discussed a concept that is always on the mind of the socialist planner and that is “social utility”. To fully understand this concept one has to understand the socialist philosophy, if it can indeed be called a philosophy—in general, philosophies are analytical. In their world view, which is basically a gnostic one, the world is occupied by two basic forms of human life—those who are wise and chosen and those who make up the common rabble—the masses.
The wise, in an older gnostic view, are anointed by the divine force to lead mankind and mold his nature based on an understanding derived from arcane knowledge carefully guarded by mystics of the ancient world. This idea, that certain men are chosen to rule mankind has permeated many governments of the world since and in modern times has attained a less metaphysical tint, but which is still divided between those who cling to the ancient notions of gnosticism, such as the theosophists (Alice Bailey), and the modern view of the New World Order Movement. Of course, they intermingle quite often. We are witnessing an exploding interest in wisdom derived from the gnostic gospels, as taught by its chief disciple Elaine Pagels. Many intellectuals, high-ranking policymakers and even clergy have accepted gnostic beliefs.
When it is accepted that certain men are chosen to rule purely based on their divine anointment and that they rule not based on raw power, but by the fact that they possess a wisdom far beyond the common man, it becomes accepted that the masses (ordinary people) must obey—it is their duty.
In the view of the gnostic, society is chaotic, poorly planned and unjust. Therefore, through a series of carefully thought out plans, in their view, society can be molded or engineered to create a more free, just and happier society than would otherwise occur. This requires that the masses, the people, be convinced to adhere to the “plan” and if they are not convinced they must be tricked into accepting the plan. As Edmund Burke said, -“The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion”. The last resort is outright force.
The wise ones see society as a parent views their small children, they must be made to take their medicine because only the wisdom of the parents can know that in the long run it will be good for them—the idea of the paternalistic society. Likewise, they are assured that the common rabble will never have the vision and intellectual capacity to understand the plan in its entirety. We see this level of arrogance in all their writings.
Armed with this world view, the chosen elite have concluded that since they must engineer the perfect society, they alone must gauge a person’s worth in terms of social utility—what does the individual or group have to offer to the New World Order. In this view, social utility is based on one’s contribution to the plan. The socialist only deals in terms of society as a whole or to the economy in general.
One who works, pays taxes and is not a burden on the state is of higher social utility than is a retired or disabled person, who not only does not contribute skills (work) or pay taxes, but more likely is a burden on the state. In the collectivist way of thinking (seeing society as a whole and having no concern for the individual) the latter person should be removed from the society, either by positive or negative euthanasia. It is positive if one actively kills a person and negative if they just deny those persons access to life sustaining care—in both cases they are just as dead.
The American gnostic elite have chosen negative euthanasia as the system that will be most accepted by the people, the masses. The mechanism for this mode of killing is rationing of health care. It is ironic that during this debate on national socialist health care many vocal defenders deny that the administration wants to kill anyone, yet if we read the words of those who designed this plan, that is exactly what they say. More on that later.
Historian Paul Johnson wrote in his book, Intellectuals, that “social engineering is the creation of millenarian intellectuals who believe that they can refashion the universe by the light of their unaided reason. It is the birthright of the totalitarian tradition.” These intellectuals are the chosen wise ones of modern times. Socialist Edward Alsworth Ross in his book Social Control, makes plain that some, the wise, must create a plan that establishes control over the society and that it is these leaders who must control the behavior and actions of the people. This book, which was highly influential among policymakers, was written in 1910. In the chapter on The Need for Social Control he explains:
Although the social fabric is at first held together by sheer force of arms, time gradually masks naked might, and moral and spiritual influences partly replace brute force. It is in the composite society, then, where the need of control is most imperative and unremitting, that the various instruments of regulation receive their highest forms and finish. Here has been perfected the technique of almost every kind of control.
He then goes on to say:
The only thing that can enable a society to dispense with control is some sort of favorable selection. The way to produce a short-clawed feline is not to trim the claws of successive generations of kittens, but to pick out the shortest clawed cats and breed from them.
This, of course is a call for eugenic engineering of society to breed for desirable people and rid society of the unfit and undesirable. It is important to keep in mind that those supporting these draconian eugenic programs were not disgruntled dreamers cogitating in some New York coffee house, they were men and women of high social rank, intellectuals, presidents of major universities, policymakers, corporate heads and even presidents of the United States. These were people in positions of power and influence who could enforce these dreams of a utopian society and that made them very dangerous.
Lily Kay, in her book, The Molecular Vision of Life, a history of molecular biology, she states:
By the time of the launching of the molecular biology program, the Rockefeller philanthropies had considerable experience with eugenics. … they did support eugenics projects, such as the sterilization campaign of the National Committee for Mental Hygiene to restrict the breeding of the feeble-minded, The Rockefeller philanthropies also acted in the area of eugenics through the Bureau of Social Hygiene (BSH) and the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial (LSRM).
Enthusiasm for social engineering and eliminating the “unfit” reached beyond our shores with links being made to the German eugenics movement, a favorite topic of Hitler and the National Socialist. Edwin Black in his history of the eugenic movement, War on the Weak, says:
The third International Congress of Eugenics was held in New York City in August of 1932, once again at the American Museum of Natural History. Although organizations such as the Rockefeller Foundation were donating vast sums to German eugenics for research and travel, the grants were frequently limited to specific activities within Germany or neighboring countries.
The reason for quoting this material is to show how even in a country such as ours the brightest and most educated class can sometimes be obsessed with dangerous ideas that can harm individuals. These individuals become especially dangerous when they control the reins of education, dissemination of news and government policy-making. As the title of Richard Weaver’s book says—Ideas Have Consequences.
The Modern Social Engineers
Unknown to many, once again a group of our most politically-connected intellectuals are pursuing an idea that can harm a great many people in our society. Much of the funding for these ideas once again flows from the major foundations in our country, especially the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation and affiliates and the Carnegie Foundation. These major foundations are networked with hundreds of other foundations and research study groups, giving them enormous influence in society and among politicians who can carry out these ideas by specific legislation.
I have chosen the Hastings Center for my source of writings on the new understandings on health care as being promoted by this administration. I say this administration, but I am certain this bill was not drafted in any congressional office, but rather had been prepared long ago by one of the foundation think tanks. I base this on my knowledge of the foundations’ obsession with health care planning and socialized medicine and the complexity of this bill.
The Hastings Center, as some will remember, was involved in much controversy many years ago as the group promoting the idea of negative euthanasia to establish more equity in health care distribution. They were not as openly radical as the Hemlock Society, which felt it their duty to eliminate those considered unfit for life and for promoting the idea of having panels of experts to decide who shall live and who shall die in nursing homes.
One of the fellows of the Hastings Center is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, President Obamas’ health care czar and a source of constant input on health care “reform”. His scholarly paper is included in a package of articles expressing the Hastings Centers position on health care reform and life in general.
On this website they make the following statement:
Death may not have changed, but dying is quite different from what it used to be, thanks to medical technologies that have extended life and made dying frequently a lingering process rather than a sudden event. People with failing kidneys can survive on dialysis for 20 or more years. People with incurable cancer can live for months or years with chemotherapy and radiation treatments. Victims of car accidents who would once have died of head trauma can now be kept alive by ventilators and feeding tubes. Meantime, life-saving therapies for what were once sudden killers, like heart attack, mean that increasing numbers of us end up with chronic complications or decline into dementia.
In other words, because of advances in medicine we can now give people longer lives, even though they have presently incurable diseases and in their view this is wrong. Why?, because it just means they may end up with something worse years later—such as dementia. That is much like saying it would be a waste to fix the fence because eventually it will wear out anyway.
A paper from this Hastings Center collection is one by a senior consultant for the Center, Bruce Jennings, titled—Liberty: Free and Equal. In essence, it is a discussion of how liberty is to be redefined in light of the “new thinking”. Socialists have redefined most words dealing with their assaults on free societies. For example, Lenin defined a moral act as one that further the socialist revolution. Thus, killing millions in gulags is moral because it promoted the communist revolution.
On the first page he resorts to the mercantilist idea that a country has a fixed amount of wealth and that it is the job of the social planner to make sure there is a “just” distribution of this wealth. We can think of the economy as a pie of a fixed size in this view. He says:
Such a conflict is thought to arise, for example, when allowing all individuals the freedom to accumulate as much as they can undermines the capacity of the entire society to ensure that each individual receives a fair share.
In other words, the economic pie is only so large and if some take a larger slice, others get a smaller slice. Adam Smith, in the Wealth of Nations and many economists since that time, have shown that this is not true--the size of the pie is ever-growing in a free market society and is determined by the creativity and genius of those operating in a free society in which private property is protected. These socialist planners do not understand this because they are socialist and socialism can never create anything in terms of economic growth—it can only redistribute by force what the free market has produced.
We also find that socialist often redefine certain words that they use to deceive the public. For example, as stated above Lenin taught that an act was moral if it promoted the revolution. This justified the mass killing of tens of millions of Russians because it furthered the communist revolution. In his essay Liberty: Free and Equal, Bruce Jennings, a senior consultant for the Hastings Center says:
The health reform conversation has to be reframed at the grass roots level so that a new way of seeing what liberty is and what it requires will grow out of that conversation. One tenet of this movement should be that equity in access to health care, reduction of group disparities in health status, and greater attention to the social determinants of the health of populations and individuals are all polity goals through which liberty will be enhanced, not diminished.
So, we see that the definition of liberty is now turned on its head and we are told to view this assault on liberty as enhancing liberty. He means that when looking at the larger picture and when wearing the special goggles of socialism, forceful redistribution of your earnings will appear as greater liberty. This is because in the socialist view, engineering of humanity will make health care more just.
Again, that depends on one’s understanding of economics—if you accept the mercantilist view of a nation’s wealth, that there is a pie to be divided, yes it is true justice demands that access be redistributed, but in a truly free society where wealth creation arises from individuals and groups of free individuals participating in free market operations, it is not true. In a free society we are not dividing up a fix amount of resources, we are allowing people to decide what is the best way for them, using their own money, to individually satisfy their health care needs and desires.
When the socialists say that they are dividing “scarce resources” one needs to ask—What are the resources in question? In a free market resource availability depends on demand and creativity of the entrepreneur. In fact, in many of their publications they complain that consumer demand is driving the development of more technology and advances in medicine. They cannot have it both ways.
One must understand that socialism is about compulsion. The socialists believes that their view of society is the only correct one, since they are the chosen wise of gnosticism, and therefore people must be made to follow their plans. As I stated in my previous paper on National Health Insurance: The Socialist Nightmare, when the legislator encounters resistance to the plan they become more frantic and dictatorial.
Liberty rethought can then be one of the touchstones for a democratic, grass roots movement for health reform that will demand health justice in a nation of free and equal persons.
In the paper he rejects the wisdom of many of the philosophers of freedom that one cannot have absolute enforced equality and personal liberty. Using a perverse logic he somehow twist the principle of using compulsion by the government, that is, to take from some (deny access to mainly the elderly, the chronically ill and the presently incurable) and give to the ones anointed by those in power.
Equality as a principle in a free country means that the government will not make laws that denies access to the benefits of freedom, which are directed at a select group or individual. For example, both segregation laws and racial quotas specifically target certain groups to be denied certain freedoms or as being anointed. What is being discussed by the socialist is that access should be guaranteed to the “poor”, a rather broad term, and selectively denied to those with the highest health care cost (the elderly and the chronically ill), which is mostly through no fault of their own.
Another paper of the series of Hastings Center publications is by Paul T. Menzel, a professor of philosophy at Pacific Lutheran University titled—Justice and Fairness: Mandating Universal Participation. I found this paper to be especially enlightening. He opens by stating that it is unjust that one person is cured of their illness and left unscathed by the cost and another dies or is left financially ruined. This health care plan, as with all such socialist health care plans, reverses the situation and says, in essence, it is they, the elite, who should choose who lives and who dies, usually meaning that the elderly, the chronically ill and the presently incurable are in the latter category.
To attain “justice” he says, mandatory health care must be legislated. Any time something is mandated, someone must be denied their liberties. For instance, mandated vaccines means you will be forcibly vaccinated, as in the case of the thousand children and teenagers in Maryland who were forcibly vaccinated in the courtroom by the judge’s order. To mandate universal health care, under their definition, means everyone will be forced into the system even against their will. This is the antithesis of freedom, despite their attempt to redefine freedom.
We have already collectively decided to prevent hospitals from turning away the uninsured. In such a context, allowing insurance to remain voluntary is unfair to many of the uninsured. The obvious way to alleviate this unfairness is to mandate insurance.
Like the ACORN intimidation of banks, forcing them to give loans to people who were bad financial risk, forcing hospitals to take non-pay patients in mass numbers, especially illegal aliens, has led to bankruptcy of many smaller hospitals and serious financial strain on many others. It also means, because of cost-shifting, the insured and self-pay patient will pay more than just for their services. But then, that pushes more to accept the idea of socialized medicine.
One of the most controversial issues is the new system of analysis called Quality Adjusted Life Years—which divides cost with how long one would expect the person to live. For example, fixing an 85 year-old person’s cataracts just so they could see well, only to have them die a year later, seem unjust and foolish to a social planner. To the person and their loved ones, it is humane and rational.
If you treat people like a statistic, as do social planners, many inhumane things can be justified. We also see that a policy that won approval when the above example is used, soon expands to reclassify a person age 55 as “too old” for a health care service, as happens in both the UK and Canada.
Efficiency, Quality Care and Money
In general, the old adage—you get what you pay for—is true. If you have bare-bones health care, you get marginal care and if you pay more, you can get the best medical science has to offer. Most of the planners for national health care plans intended for the public to get bare bones care, but they sold them on accepting the care by telling them it would offer unlimited service and quality.
Now we are hearing a different story from the planners. Suddenly, we are hearing major players in health care suggest that we should “turn back the clock” on health technology and top dollar care. In other words, people should settle for care at a 1960 level rather than a 2009 level. Professor Callahan states it this way:
Serious progress would mean turning back the clock; learning to take care of ourselves, to tolerate some degree of discomfort, to accept the reality of aging and death.
Further he says:
One could make a good case that improvements in education and job creation could be a better use of limited funds than better medical care. Social and economic progress would have double and even triple benefits beyond improved health.
Thomas Murray, the president of the Hastings center agrees. He says that, “At times the best investment for health may be in education, job creation, or environmental protections, not in health care.”
Daniel Callahan notes that the carrot and stick approach may have to be used to guide people to accept changes in health care. As for the sticks he says:
The stick will be the message that you should take care of yourself and not expect medicine to save you when your time runs out—that is no longer an option.
Already, government funded medical care provides less medical care than privately insured patients, especially those with expensive plans. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama’s health czar, wrote an article for the Hastings Center in 1996 in which he said;
Medicare beneficiaries receive fewer services with some discretionary services covered and some services that intuitively seem basic covered; Medicaid beneficiaries and uninsured persons receive far fewer services.
Dr. Emanuel goes on to suggest that:
Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.
Does Doctor Emanuel suggest that the Alzheimer patients should receive no care? What about the early Alzheimer patients, should they be seen for a bladder infection, a degenerative hip or diarrhea? Or should we just let the family deal with it so we can use that money for other social engineering projects, perhaps a new projector to show sex-education propaganda to grade-school children. It is obvious that under such a system, we must measure a person’s “social utility” to determine if they are worth the expenditure.
Who Are the Elderly?
From a series of statements by Doctor Emanuel it is apparent that he, and many others in positions of power, conclude that the elderly have lived their lives and it is time for them to move on, especially if they are costing the state money. This is not a new theme among the elitists of society, as we went through this with Social Security as well.
One must then ask-Who are the elderly and why do they deserve to live? This question poised by the socialists, assumes that one must give a justification to the federal government for existing in this society. This is the social utility argument. If you serve no useful purpose in the society, as far as some social usefulness, then you have no social utility and are no longer welcome. This is not really that far away from the German National Socialist Party’s thinking, which referred to those with no social utility as “useless eaters” and the disabled, chronically ill and incurables as “life unworthy of life”.
I remember when I was a boy my dad introducing me to this very old fellow. We got to talking and I learned that the old gentleman had fought in the Spanish American War. He told me things that I could never learn from a history book and it stuck with me all my life. My dad later told me that there were older people all over who had interesting stories to tell, people who had done amazing things and accomplished much in life. They were a storehouse of history, wisdom and interesting stories of life during America’s greatest moments.
I have gotten to know many who survived the Great Depression, World Wars I and II, Korea and Vietnam. I even met a fellow once who saw the Hindenburg burn. My mom used to tell me stories of listening to FDR on the radio and my Aunt Ann was working as a telephone operator when it was announced that Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor. These things are invaluable.
To have the older generation around as long as possible is a great value to us all. There was a time when we honored our parents and grandparents as sources of great wisdom, yet in modern times we just see them as old fogies that have no idea how to send emails or program a DVD. We are now being taught by our “elite leaders” and intellectuals that we would all be better off if the elderly would just accept death and that denying them health care can speed the process.
There is a polarization between the young and old, which can only be worsened by the present debate on the elderly’s “social utility”. With so many divorcees, a growing number of youth often feel little real attachment, appreciation or abiding love for their parents or grandparents. One can make a strong case for the present destruction of families and marriages being the result of a series of earlier social engineering plans and schemes.
We also need to appreciate that because of the great number of children born out of wedlock, Grandmothers are often raising these children for their daughters, so many have “social utility” not recognized by the elite planners and social engineers. Yet, even beyond this, we should appreciate that the elderly have lived good lives, worked hard, paid their taxes, obeyed the laws and many have made significant contributions during their lives that have made life better for others.
A great number have served nobly during America’s wars--lost limbs and suffered from the stress of war. Are we to dishonor them now for their sacrifice by telling them they are a liability? Others gave their sons and daughters during wars and lived with the anguish of the loss. Is this how we honor that sacrifice—to tell them that they are of no use? When I read the stories of the young men and women who have sacrificed their lives in battle in today’s wars I wonder will they be dishonored in such a way when they get old or sick?
We can honestly say that it was the labor of our seniors that built this great country, so how can we betray them now? Even worse is that we are telling them that we don’t even care that they are suffering during their last days and that they are aware that relief of their suffering exist, but they cannot have it—the money, they are told, would be better spent on educational programs, studies of global climate change and a plethora of other socialist dreams.
If we let this happen, we should hold our heads in shame.
Friday, April 15, 2011
by Janet Phelan as originally reported on Salem News
Moire's testimony dealt with a number of specific areas wherein she stated that Tanaka's health was impacted by the type of care being delivered by Cotterman. These included concerns that Mrs. Tanaka was forcibly removed from her spacious Westwood home and subsequently confined in a small basement apartment, as well as the discontinuation of physician prescribed supplements which had previously stabilized Mrs. Tanaka's blood pressure, normalized her cholesterol levels, built bone density, and strengthened her immune system and cognitive functioning. This discontinuance has been followed by 5 back -to- back urinary infections,4 collapses and several hospitalizations where she was transported unconscious by ambulances none of which were brought to the attention of a cardiologist. She has reportedly suffered weight loss, lack of basic dental care, isolation and restrictive monitoring of highly limited visits with her daughter, Jeannie.
Of specific concern to Dr. Moire was the placement of Mrs. Tanaka on “comfort care” in the absence of any terminal condition or diagnosis, which has resulted in not only the continued withdrawal of care (such as supplements) which were deemed beneficial to the ninety-five year old woman but the denial of care for her now painfully swollen hands, extreme fatigue, and what has been reported as sudden inability to stand up on her own and walk, brainfog and erratic blood pressure.
The Salem News has obtained a copy of the ex parte notice, written by attorney Margaret Lodise, in which she advises that “we will be making an ex parte application tomorrow morning at 8:30 a.m. In Room 258 (Dept. 9) seeking an order restraining either Jeannie or Dr. Moire or either of their agents from making any calls to the police, the paramedics or any similar agency reporting elder abuse regarding Mrs. Tanaka until further order of the court.” Lodise's office has declined to comment on this matter .
At the April 1st hearing, Judge Goetz chose to also restrain Jeannie from any further contact with her mother. According to witnesses, Jeannie showed up at her mother's dwelling that evening after Dr. Moire had made the phone calls to APS and police and was not involved in Dr. Moire's actions. Goetz subsequently reversed this decision on April 13th, allowing Jeannie a total of three hours per week of paid monitored visitation with her mother.
Dr. Moire states she was not served with a notice of hearing and calls the efforts to restrain her “ludicrous and illegal.” She has previously typified the efforts to separate mother and daughter as follows: “The isolation from daughter Jeanie is sorrowfully self expressed by Mrs. Tanaka and deprivation from the company of her daughter Jeanie is cruel and abusive to them both.” Jeannie Tanaka has been ordered to pay hundreds of dolllars per visit to a monitoring company.
The use of Restraining Orders to restrict family members from their ability to oversee the care of conservatees has become epidemic. In a case involving conservatorships and the rich and famous, Goetz also approved a temporary restraining order against singer Courtney Love that bars her from seeing or contacting her daughter, Frances Bean Cobain. Love had protested that her daughter, who is under a guardianship, had been molested by Jamie Spears, who is the father (and conservator) of another famous conservatee, singer Britney Spears. In a less publicized case, retired peace officer Willliam Horspool was restrained from his father, conservatee Raymond Horspool, after taking photographs which allegedly demonstrated the poor care being received by his father. San Bernardino Court Judge Michael Welch said he “didn't believe” the photos, which apparently showed the elder Horspool lying in soiled bedclothes, and ordered the photos destroyed. William Horspool was subsequently restrained from his father without a hearing, a violation of the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The use of a restraining order to block a physician, who is a mandated reporter of elder abuse, from reporting elder abuse may be groundbreaking. According to Jeannie Tanaka's attorney Robert Canny, the decision by Judge Goetz effectively overturns the First Amendment to the US Constitution and Article 1, Section 2 of the California Constitution.
A friend sent this column off LewRockwell.com. Over the years we have enjoyed Rockwell’s writing and broadcast interviews and were fortunate to hear him speak in Houston earlier this year.
The column, Stormtroopers and Child-Snatchers, was written by William Norman Grigg. While the piece addresses some egregious sounding actions on the part of Child Protective Services agencies, it is reminiscent of actions we see occurring with disabled adults via probate courts.Posted: 13 Apr 2011 04:30 PM PDT
Ariana Goldboldo, a mentally handicapped 13-year-old, was abducted from her home at gunpoint on March 24. Her captors have systematically poisoned her through injections of a dangerous psychoactive drug. There is also reason to believe that Ariana, who has reportedly tested positive for an STD, has been molested during her time in captivity.Ariana’s mother, Maryanne, made a valiant but futile effort to protect her daughter. As a result, she may end up in prison. If this happens, Ariana almost certainly won’t survive.
Godboldo, a college dance instructor, had attempted to school her daughter at home, but eventually decided to place the youngster in a local government school. This meant that the girl would have to undergo a government-dictated suite of vaccinations.Shortly after receiving the injections, the girl experienced severe side-effects, including behavioral problems she hadn’t previously experienced.
When Godboldo consulted with local health and welfare officials, she was told that her daughter would have to receive regular injections of Risperdal, supposedly to counteract the effects of the other government-mandated vaccinations. This is a bit like prescribing cancer to treat diabetes. Among the documented side-effects of that drug are tardive dyskinesia (difficulty with basic motor skills) and severe emotional problems – including suicidal thoughts. When Godboldo’s long-suffering child began to display those symptoms, the mother refused to continue with the injections.The local “child protection” bureaucracy – which, like all other agencies of its kind, subscribes to the totalitarian assumption that children are the property of the state – decreed that Godboldo was “in denial about her daughter’s mental health issue.”
There’s no evidence that Godboldo disputed the seriousness of her daughter’s condition; as Ariana’s primary caretaker, she understood it very well. She had very reasonable doubts about the competence of the therapeutic officials who were forcing Ariana to undergo injections of a potentially lethal drug. But it is impermissible for parents to entertain such reservations about the wisdom of those clothed in the purported authority of the State, or to resist their prescriptions, whatever their efficacy.Sure, Ariana might die or be driven irretrievably mad as a result of government-mandated treatment – but this was a decision for the Anointed Ones to make, and for parents to accept with proper docility. Accordingly, the CPS authorized itself to “liberate” Godboldo’s daughter in order to continue poisoning her with Risperdal injections. A small team of government kidnappers – CPS workers and Detroit Police officers – materialized on Godboldo’s doorstep, demanding that she surrender the child.
“They broke into my home illegally in an effort to take my daughter,” Godboldo recalls. “They had no documentation that said they were allowed to enter my home.”Godboldo, acting on her natural authority as a parent to protect her child, refused to let the kidnappers take her daughter.
When Godboldo refused to let CPS take her daughter, a home invasion team – led, appropriately, by a veteran of the Iraq occupation, Lt. Michael Nied – forced its way into the home. Nied claims that Godboldo fired a gunshot that sprayed him with drywall residue and made his little heart quiver. He and his fellow heroes retreated and called in a “barricaded gunman situation.” A ten-hour siege then ensued.Prudential considerations aside, Godboldo would have been within her rights to gun down the kidnappers, had she possessed the means to do so. She hadn’t committed a criminal offense, and the police didn’t bother to bring along one of those cunning little permission slips judges reflexively issue any time police want to invade a home. In moral and legal terms they were no better than any other gang of armed intruders.
Eventually a paramilitary SWAT team – complete with automatic weapons, armored personnel carriers, and helicopters – was dispatched to surround Godboldo’s home. The mother eventually surrendered and was put in jail on a $500,000 bond. Although Maryanne was released on bail, her daughter remains in the custody of her abductors, undergoing forcible injections of a drug that is slowly destroying her body and mind – and, quite possibly, being subjected to sexual violation as well.Godboldo can take a small measure of comfort in the fact that Ariana – unlike Aiyana Jones, who was murdered by a Detroit SWAT team in a gratuitous raid staged for a “reality TV” program a year ago – is still alive. But the risk to that child increases with every minute she remains in the custody of Michigan’s child “protection” service.
Last year, Detroit ABC affiliate WXYZ presented a detailed report on the murder of 10-year-old Johnny Andron, a child suffering from epilepsy and cerebral palsy who was seized by the state and starved to death in what was referred to as a “foster care facility.” Johnny’s mother Elena, a single parent, devoted most of her free time to caring for her wheelchair-bound son.After she lost her factory job, Elena made the tragic error of seeking “help” from the child “welfare” system, which makes a federally subsidized profit each time it steals a child from his parents. Johnny was made a “temporary ward of the state,” a judicial designation that was tantamount to a death sentence. The same was true of Elena’s parental rights, since the same ruling placed her on a central registry of “abusive” and “neglectful” parents. She was placed inside the hamster wheel of government-approved “parenting classes” taught by profiteering busybodies who’ve attached themselves like boxcars to the federal gravy train.
For months, Elena struggled to find and keep a new job while dutifully attending classes that did nothing but clutter her schedule. During the same period she watched her son, who had been a hefty child but – considering his disabilities – a healthy one, slowly waste away through deliberate criminal neglect.Infuriated that her child was being tortured to death through starvation, Elena dared to complain. This action was taken as evidence of her unsuitability to be a parent. She was summoned to court and informed by a black-robed functionary that she wouldn’t be permitted any further visits with her son. She had no further contact with Johnny, and no updates on his status until a representative of the criminal syndicate that had taken him hostage announced to her that he had died.
Mike Ratte nearly lost his seven-year-old son into Michigan’s foster-care gulag after mistakenly allowing the child to take a sip from a beverage called Mike’s Hard Lemonade during a Tigers game in 2008. Ratte, a professor of archeology at the University of Michigan, didn’t know that the product contained alcohol. Since the sign advertising the drink described it only as “Mike’s Lemonade,” Ratte assumed that it was a badly overpriced soft drink.Leo took a sip of the beverage, immediately found it distasteful, and place the bottle on the floor near his bleacher seat. Shortly before the game ended a Comerica Park security guard waddled over, picked up the bottle, and asked Ratte if his son had been drinking from it.
Although Reed was puzzled by the question, he replied in the affirmative. His puzzlement mutated into alarm when he was told that the “lemonade” was actually an alcoholic drink. The guard demanded that Ratte and his son remain seated while a scrum of his buddies assembled to escort them to a police substation located in the stadium.When questioned by the police, Ratte admitted – once again – that Leo had taken a swig of the drink, repeating as well his insistence that this was an innocent mistake. Anybody burdened with even a particle of common sense would recognize this as the truth. If Mike Ratte were perversely determined to get his son drunk, would he do so in public? If questioned about this, would such a person admit that his son had sampled the forbidden libation?
Anybody capable of making an EEG needle twitch would recognize that this was an honest mistake, not a crime. (Another Michigan family recently had a similar but scarier experience, due to a mix-up at an Applebee’s restaurant.) This was made all the more obvious when an exam confirmed that Leo wasn’t intoxicated. But this didn’t prevent the police from doing what they are programmed to do in such circumstances, which is to use any available pretext to kidnap the child.“Class has something to do with the fact that the child was only in care for two days,” points out Don Duquette, a law professor at the University of Michigan and director of the university’s child advocacy center said. “If you’re not sophisticated, the system isn’t set up to give you very much of a chance to work against the ritual that’s ordinarily done.”
The “ritual” Duquette refers to is a form of bureaucratic child sacrifice: Families are destroyed, and children are abused under the color of supposed government authority, in order to placate the demands of the tax-feeding class. That ritual can commence at any time, for any reason. And any family can be selected as sacrificial victims. All that is required is the conjunction of an anonymous complaint and a willing bureaucrat. I write those words as a father who has confronted that prospect face-to-face.As described in a civil complaint filed on behalf of the family, Mike and Leo were forced to take an ambulance ride to a nearby hospital, where Leo was forced to endure a blood test that confirmed the absence of alcohol in his body. While his son was being needlessly bled and perforated, Mike was taken to a separate room and questioned by Officer Celeste Reed of the Detroit Police Department’s Child Abuse Division. This wasn’t an investigation; it was a dilatory maneuver. Reed was simply waiting until the child-snatchers had worked out the details of the abduction.
When she finally acknowledged to Ratte that she and her comrades were going to steal his son, Reed played the Nuremberg Defense card, blaming a superior who was “pushing this case to impress her new boss.” Once Leo was in custody, however, Reed took the initiative, perjuriously claiming in her report that officers had “observed [Leo] to be intoxicated.”Leo was sequestered from his family and put into temporary foster care while the CPS bureaucracy labored to find some way to make their abduction permanent. The “referee” assigned to the case announced that she would keep it open for a week. However, Mike and his wife – unlike most of the families victimized by the child-snatchers – were people of means and influence. With the help of a capable attorney they were able to free their son after a mere two days’ captivity.
The kidnapping of Leo Ratte occurred because his father made a trivial mistake involving a government-restricted mood-altering substance that inflicted no measurable harm on the child.By way of contrast, Elena Andron and Maryanne Godboldo have been traduced as “neglectful” parents because they sought to preserve their handicapped children from state-sanctioned harm. As a result, Elena’s son Johnny is dead, and the same people responsible for that atrocity will quite possibly kill Ariana unless Maryanne is able to rescue her from the child “protection” system.
If Maryanne goes to prison, her daughter will die. At present, her prosecution on assault charges is being held in abeyance pending a ruling from the Michigan State Supreme Court in a case “that will determine if residents have the right to defend themselves from police officers entering a home without proper authority,” reports the Detroit News.Embedded in this delay is a critical admission by the prosecution – namely, that Godboldo is correct in claiming that the CPS raid was conducted without legal authority. Unfortunately – albeit predictably – the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that it is, in all circumstances, a “felony” for a Mundane to obstruct or resist the aggressive violence of a police officer acting without lawful authority.
In a 1999 ruling (People v. Wess), the Michigan Court of Appeals, citing the state legal code, admitted that citizens had a right, explicitly protected by state statute, “to use such reasonable force as is necessary to prevent an illegal attachment and to resist an illegal arrest.” However, in the dicta of that ruling the court all but begged for either the legislature or the state Supreme Court to change the law:“We share the concerns of other jurisdictions that the right to resist an illegal arrest is an outmoded and dangerous doctrine, and we urge our Supreme Court to reconsider this doctrine at the first available opportunity…. we see no benefit to continuing the right to resist an otherwise peaceful arrest made by a law enforcement officer, merely because the arrestee believes the arrest is illegal. Given modern procedural safeguards for criminal defendants, the `right’ only preserves the possibility that harm will come to the arresting officer or the defendant.”
The line about “procedural safeguards” is unfiltered codswallop, of course – but remember it, because we’ll return to it anon.In 2002, the Michigan state legislature modified the relevant section of the state code (MCL 705.81d) by removing the clause recognizing the common law right to “use such reasonable force as is necessary to prevent” an unlawful arrest (that is, an armed kidnapping) by a police officer.
In a 2004 ruling (People v. Ventura) that dealt with a self-defense claim against an unlawful arrest, the Court of Appeals, in a perfectly nauseating display of mock humility, proclaimed that “it is not within our province to disturb our Legislature’s obvious affirmative choice to modify the traditional common-law rule that a person may resist an unlawful arrest.”Of course, the legislature made that “choice” after being invited to do so by the same Court of Appeals.
In the 2008 case headed for the state Supreme Court (People v. Moreno), the Appeals Court observed that “we find no reference to the lawfulness of the arrest or detaining act” in the statute, which “states only that an individual who resists a person the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his duties is guilty of a felony.”As the Michigan Court of Appeals acknowledged, the Common Law recognizes an unqualified right to resist an unlawful arrest. The Constitution – for whatever it’s worth – reinforces that right by placing due process impediments (such as the necessity of obtaining search warrants) on the ability of armed hirelings in government-issued costumes to inflict themselves on their betters. But the Court of Appeals – like every statist body of its kind – insists that the costume trumps the Common Law and the Constitution.
Now let’s return to the notion that the right to resist arrest has become “outmoded” because of the “procedural safeguards” that supposedly protect criminal defendants. In the Moreno case – the one bound for the Michigan Supreme Court – the “criminal” act of resistance was a demand that police get a search warrant before entering a home, and then closing the door when the police refused to leave. The trial court agreed that Moreno acted within his rights by refusing to permit police to invade his home illegally. The position taken by the state Court of Appeals is that merely uttering the phrase “Not without a warrant” can be construed as grounds for arrest, and that any physical act intended to prevent that illegal arrest constitutes a felony.Ariana Godboldo has never been charged with a crime; neither had her mother, until she engaged in a heroic but doomed effort to protect her child from an assault on their home that the prosecution now tacitly admits was unlawful.
As Elena Andron and countless other parents have learned, there are no procedural safeguards for parental rights or the individual rights of children once the CPS intervenes.The federally subsidized child “protection” universe is a joint production of Lenin, Kafka and Salvador Dali in which power means everything, facts and law mean nothing, and the contours of “reality” are warped in the service of self-enraptured bureaucrats.
Unless a parent is a person of means and influence, like Mike Ratte, active resistance may be the only way to keep his child or children from disappearing into the CPS Archipelago once the family comes to the attention of the child-snatchers. Ideally, this would mean pro-active measures to conceal a targeted child, or to provide for the child’s escape in the event the child-nappers arrive.As the abduction of Ariana Godboldo demonstrates, the child “protection” apparatus is literally at war with American parents, and police are prepared to murder any parent determined to keep his children out of the hands of those who can drug them, starve them, and molest them with impunity.
Detroit SWAT team assaults African American mom who refused to medicate her daughter with antipsychotic drugs
Friday, April 15, 2011 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...) Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032089_antipsychotic_drugs_health_freedom.html#ixzz1JboOTJzI
When Maryanne refused to let CPS take her daughter away, CPS personnel then called the police, who then smashed down her front door and attempted to raid her home to kidnap her daughter by force.