Thomas Alexander Bleu LeBaron & Melanie LeBaron & Me SMP

Subject: Sheriff of Polk County 850 Main St. * Dallas, Oregon 97338 * 503-623-9251 * Fax 503-623-2060
Time: 8:37:35 PM EDT
Author: madatcps


Confirm Entry in Guestbook: http://www.polksheriff.net/ / Error during Post


Name: LeBaron
E-Mail: madatcps@aol.com
Referred By: Search Engine
City/Country: Portland, Oregon [97233]

Homepage:

http://journals.aol.com/reformcps/RULE-53-REFORM-BLAWG-LAW-OAR-ORS/entries/2007/07/20/my-journals.aol.com-reformcpsaol.com-rule-53-reform-blawg-law-oar-ors/60

Comments:

Melanie LeBaron, Victoria Couvillion
Portland, Oregon [97233]
Thomas Alexander Bleu LeBaron
Marilyn LeBaron
Portland, Oregon [97233]


Sheriff Of Polk County
850 Main
Dallas, Oregon 97338

Dear Sheriff Bob Wolfe,
http://www.polksheriff.net/

Please include in your duties pursuant to your of Office and equal protection of Due Process, the Judicial Code of Conduct, RULE 71, in support of proper application of the Separation of Powers, upon investigation and call to the Child Abuse Hotline the Charge of Perjury against Chandra Snyder.

My daughter was detained against her will at the Independence Police Department, 240 Monmouth, Independence Oregon 97351, against Melanie’s request for my presence without DHS assignment from the Child Abuse Hotline. There was no open case and no presentment on the prior case assigned to Mary Anne E. Miller January 10, 2005, regarding my son, yet that case was purported a Probable Cause after Chandra Snyder personally wrote she would not answer the volumes of my letters and made unauthorized demands on a closed case.

Melanie was not allowed to go home nor was she prosecuted for her petty offenses. My daughter nor I were informed there would be a "No Contact Order" on November 18, 2005 nor did my daughter request one, but demanded repeatedly to see me and refused services.

That which was indented as Probable Cause in Petition III (i), and signed by Chandra Snyder, was rebutted by Judge Avera and Charles Douglas Berge, and never proved nor resented as Judge Horner Ordered. That Order, though in violation of the Judicial Code of Conduct, stipulated he needed to hear from the DHS.

DHS are in default that Order yet used Judge Horner’s discretion as Probable Cause. Further more Judge Horner’s recuse, subject to further criticism, he declaring a conflict of interest between my daughter and I after appointing her and I the same Law firm at my Arraignment where I had no Counsel present.

Mat L. Hawkins is impeached by Supreme Court rule as a witness as he demonstrated his prejudice in a report to Officer Palmeroy of Monmouth Police Department, late October, giving orders that my daughter was not allowed to return home, as if I had been Adjudicated on a matter where he said, "We have no way to sink our teeth into this" on January 25, 2005.

Chandra Snyder, in violation of the Separation of Powers, after she failed to uphold the Sixth Amendment, then acted as judge to assign a case after it was closed at screening. Proof of her failure is in Court Record, which makes her prosecutor and judge on a case that was never presented or allowed a rebuttal.

Chandra Snyder, also in violation of the Separation of Powers, signed Petition III (i) acting as a complainant in lieu of an actual complaint from my daughter, which is a violation of the Professional Rules of Conduct in that there is a conflict of interest between her and her intended Client.

Chandra Snyder also, in violation of the Separation of Powers acted as Counsel at the CITIZEN REVIEW BOARD after seizing, directly from my daughter’s hand, the signature lines of the AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS, witch is a violation of the right to the security of our papers and the right to an Affidavit.

This is unconscionable considering she was not the caseworker assigned the case and improvised, saying, "Melanie’s passion is church", to gain the favor of the CITIZEN REVIEW BOARD, in direct violation of our right to Counsel of Choice.

My daughter denied by all who herd her demands for a lawyer, to sue the DHS, is the cause for her numerous requests for proper representation to go without Counsel of any kind.

Judge Horner acted in violation of the Separation of Powers in allowing a case he assigned be brought against me, directly being it is included as Probable Cause while he becoming the witness and intending to preside. This is due to no motion or Petition from the opposing party being filed, making Horner the complainant, causing a violation of "No Complaint, No Victim", when he not properly adjoined as a party or witness according to Due Process ignored my son’s desire to return home, and sits in violation of Judicial Code of Conduct, too, in that I am caused to face him and the DHS allegation.

Polk County Circuit Court is liable for allowing these violations of the Separation of Powers, congruent to the fact that there is no Attorney Client Privilege, causing the Plea and the Fifth Amendment to be circumvented in noncriminal prosecution, which in turn nullifies the "Plea Bargain" at the criminal level. This is due to unfair application of RULE 53 in all my matters as my parental rights to visit my son are terminated without a petition from DHS by Judge Horner. This is slavery and grounds for your intervention by a Quash at the County level. Your leadership on RULE 53 Reform on a national level in support of the right to Privacy is needed.

Reinforcing the right to Privileged relationships is of an expedient nature considering pending legislation towards universal health care, with respect to the use of Police Force to gain a Release of information in my case and DHS demands to be included in releases thereto before and after Petition III was filed. Furthermore the Presumption of Innocence is no more in our country if the method against the right to a speedy trial to gain a Second Set of Double Continuances does not go unchecked, due to my daughter’s state of advisement and what Max R. Wall called Fully Advised on the Premise.

Juvenile Petitions, at noncriminal prosecution, when involving future criminal allegation, where there will never be an arraignment or trial should be, by the right We the People have in the proper application of equal protection of the right to a fair trial, be met with proper objections, a motions to vacate in order to preclude pre-conviction in other cases. "Psychology as a Wild Card" is not a president to uphold when no witnesses in favor of the defense are called in comparison to the impeachable foster mother called by prosecution, and all that is to show for a cause of action took place in closed quarters against the Oregon Constitution, now circumvent by false application of privilege not licensed or regulated by Oath or membership to the Bar Association.

The right to the Presumption if Innocence is Cause Without Dishonor, superseding prejudice displayed by Judge Avera, Max R. Wall, is grounds for their recall.

The Juvenile case notwithstanding judicial prejudice does not preclude the impeachment of misled public official, including Mat L. Hawkins, Chandra Snyder, Marry Anne E. Miller, Detective Barlow, Officer Allison Steghetti, Officer Banuelos, Nicole K. Hall, other undisclosed members of the DHS participating in a diagnosis gotten through improper channels, Judge Horner, Judge Luukinen, grounds for his recall. This leaving Judge Avera and Andy Simrin to reveal in separate Affidavit as to why there is a conflict of interest declared at the Public Defender’s office, which is another plate of spaghetti or a bowl of bureaucratic double speak, not easily accessible to laypersons to sort out.

This declaration by Judge Avera that he is Fully Advised on the Premise that there is a Conflict of Interest at the Public Defenders Office is controversial in light that Judge Horner is the one that appointed Chris Lilligard’s office to my daughter directly to the Point in Fact there was never a motion from the Public Defender’s office to be relieved of duty on that appointment. Thereto Charles Douglas Berg stated he wanted to call Melanie as a witness in my favor but did not Subpoena her on record. Next, Charles Douglas Berg being barred from directly speaking to her, not permitted to represent her directly, nullifies my claim against DHS on her behalf as hearsay unlike the tons of it allowed into record from DHS, CASA, and the fact that Max R. Wall never directly spoke to Melanie, produces a conflict of laws on the same grounds that Andy Simrin used to request he be relieved of his appointment to my case.

Max R. Wall, did not directly subpoena her or present information on Oath of Affirmation in Melanie’s had, but issued a Subpoena for Darlene Rogers, knowing she would bring Melanie with her, a back door of sorts needing a lock, as this proves there was a conflict of interest between my daughter and Chandra Snyder, and Judge Horner was right in assigning us the same law firm and should have had the dignity and wisdom of his own adherence to order of process to withdraw under his duty to provide a fair trial.

This is a compounded conflict of interest in that even if all this would have been brought up at the criminal trial it would, by no means have provided relief or had bearing on the Juvenile Matter, and should met with civil action as to prevent other judicial figures from making a quick exit blaming the Public Defender while he also ignores sound objections preferring a seer above every good standard of law. Leaving our constitutional rights in a state of peril and RULE 53 in need of reform is dishonor to our flag.

No judge should decide how two cases are consolidated without a motion from a party to the action, subject to points raised and authorities relied upon congruent to the Facts admissible from which relief is sought, for objections from the opposing parties. This would maintain an independent judiciary binding Attorneys accountable their Professional Rules of Conduct bringing any conflicts between Client and Attorney out in the open. Yet, currently in opposite on the automatic motion of the Court, the example of Judge Luukinen, proved he is not independent of the prosecution team, continued the criminal allegation at the first set of double continuances. Then Judge Avera who stayed both cases again proved he is pre-set, bias, that mere technicalities are grounds to remove children in noncriminal prosecution, that he will allow a two year "No Contact Order", once lifted, as a sentence, that "Sometime this century" as argument for admissibility with no duo jurisdictional arguments of relevancy for or against "Psychology the Wild Card" from Court appointed Attorneys on the Premise of DHS diagnosis, that there is no plea or arraignment for Juvenile matters though termination of a parental rights is worse that a "Life" term.

These statements supported by the facts that Max R. Wall did not move to put ’a Parent’ to death, so to speak, nor could even if the two sets of misdemeanors were not dismissed, that equal protection of Mark Allen Heslinga’s jurisdiction is not available to parents, that Max R. Wall did not move to terminate my parental rights or could on the Juvenile case he so diligently pressed because a teenager’s who acting out is not grounds to put anybody to death considering numerous men in prisons serving life sentences.

These two cases prove a citizen when addressed as ’a Parent’ does not have the right to not contract, or the right to contract without quasi government interest as third party control. This does not protect freedom, privacy, Liberty, or equal protection of the law, or our rights to Due Process. On its face this case is evidence the courts, in lieu of pressing criminal charges can committed parents to the care of a psychologist on the Prophetic Premise of a future crime against a bureaucrat without the option for the accused to entering a plea of not guilty be reason of metal defect, which gives the noncriminal prosecutor too much power. This does not preserve "innocent until proven guilty" in noncriminal prosecution and gives the noncriminal prosecutor too much power, the parent losing their asset of Privilege in leveraging the ADMINISTRATOIN as a tool for clinical enforcement. This nullifies the Presumption of Innocence in criminal allegations, and goes to the State of Oregon asserting the future net worth of ’a Child’, or their damages to tax payers, the only rule of thumb, when neither are the Supreme Law of the Land or subject to a tort, claim, prior to an actual crime or attack against a pregnant woman, and completely irrelevant to the rules application of the RUES Of COURT regarding who is a claimant or joinable on any matter.

If I would have attacked someone in the court before Judge Avera my daughter certainly could not have been adjoined as a party to the action seeking relief.

There is no jurisdiction where there is no claim and the Public Defender did not defend me against a case where there is not sufficient evidence to convict me when physical proof in the form of bruises and hospital bills are not available for Exhibit. For all these reasons any citizen aware of this case has arguments to recuse any Polk County Judge on the grounds they cannot be fair. This case is a model case for class action law suet, grounds for a civil suet against Mat L. Hawkins, the Juvenile Department, Polk County Circuit Court, Sgt. IGA, Detective Barlow, Max R. Wall, the Child Abuse Hotline, Judge Horner, Judge Avera and Luukinen, naming the State of Oregon liable as well, include the court clerk, the prosecutors, the Sheriffs Office, DHS, the City of Independence, and all of congress for allowing such a program to be put in place under Contractual Agreements that circumvent the Separation of Powers, encouraging the conduct of all DHS caseworkers, who impeached themselves with no result towards relief. The OAR that allowed Chandra Snyder to overturn the Child Abuse Hotline needs repeal subject to the fact that the State of Oregon, through proper channels, cannot adjoin a legal complainant on behalf of third party entities who cannot be adjoined as a party to the actions. This is due to the fact that there is a conflict of interest regarding profit margins due to the monetary gain next to the fact that pharmaceutical companies are not held liable when their products fail. Yet, psychologists through what seems to be citizen arrest powers assigned to the DHS, or Child Protective Services, have the legislated power to force We the People to be consumers of their products.

This is controversial since they are not available for a lien against their recommendations congruent to all the immunities granted to Judges, bureaucrats, and incorporated entities. This is a special position in society, which is against our Oregon State Constitution since communication seeking Expert opinion is done through secret channels under the guise of ’a Child’s’ right to privacy when there is no Constitutional Privilege available to the relationship assigned to the ORS Advocate under the definition of Counsel of Choice and the care or treatment is used as evidence after the fact of a case being filed which circumvents the right to the Fifth Amendment.

Please verify, in support of your duty to uphold the Separation of Powers:

Judge Horner knew the case was closed and that there was no motion upon the court to reassign the case regarding my son, which was assigned, assessed, and closed prior to my custody trial on July 13, 2005.

That Judge Avera, Luukinen, and Horner, received the motion for Disclosure forwarded from Judge Sullivan and that it is in Court record Chandra Snyder would not respond to the volumes of my letters in which I argued the best I could to gain access to their Exhibits and a grievance. Please obtain a copy of every letter mailed to Supervisory Staff and other subordinate Caseworkers.

Please ask Charles Douglas Berg to seal his records and ask that Max R. Wall and all other entities cease to discuss my case.

That Mark Allen Heslinga could not call any of the witnesses after they sat in on the Juvenile Matter since collaborated testimony is not admissible in the court of law.

That Marry Anne E. Miller is in fact the only person who did not attend the trial in person and not available anyway to testify for the upcoming criminal allegation, regardless of that fact, in support of my right not to be placed in double jeopardy.

That there were no Family Unity Meetings set by order of the DHS subject to REASONABLE EFFORTS to keep the family together regarding my son’s matters, before or after the case was assigned to Marry Anne E. Miller.

That the Independence Police Department was not asked facilitate a sound police investigation into the allegation raised by and between Mat L. Hawkins and Marry Anne E. Miller.

That no questions were asked of me as to my sleeping habits while under false arrest at the Polk County Sheriff’s office, for things irrelevant to the reason’s DHS got the case assigned on November 21, 2005. That Officer Barlow did not include in his property receipt any bullets and that there were no charges or complaint regarding menacing a police officer, therefore DHS could not be included as a complainant on that matter.

That the Judicial Code of Conduct would require Zachariah B. Singleton, at the request of DHS, to prove with doctor reports DHS had a valid complaint in support of Marry Anne E. Miller’s attending a Staffing after the case was closed for Probable Cause to he raising any inferences my status as a patient was relevant to his care, which further does not allow for the allegation he was under any threat of harm, or immediate danger, with regard to the FAX which states the case is closed and given the disposition of UNABLE TO DETERMINE.

That there is no reason for Judge Horner to ignore the disposition of a case when the statements of a DHS caseworker directly impeach her supported by the ORS which prohibits the Social Services offered Family Members from stigmatization subjecting them to prejudice.

That there was no mention of a Safety Plan at the time of the interview in Mat L. Hawkins office or evidence in the logged completed report, and that there was no evidence to support the later allegation that my son was in any way subject to the allegation of my being an eminent threat to his safety on the dates after which the case was closed and then upgraded immediately when also given the disposition of UNABLE TO DETERMINE. That Chandra Snyder ignored my complaints thereto in support of a subordinate.

That there was no sound police report regarding the logged allegation of my son not getting ’meals’ prepared for him and no medical examination was done to support the FAX sent to Zachariah B. Singleton, when DHS absolutely had no grounds to slander me and become the stated ’cause’, as he put it, "The sole cause", he took my son away, in contradiction of his statement on the Ex Prate Motion set before Judge Sullivan.

That Zachariah B. Singleton did not take my son to the doctor to see if his needs were not met, but instead concentrated, like DHS, and Max R. Wall on Psychology the Wild Card to forward a second Premise instead of proving the initial allegations, which proves the DHS does not need a Premise when threatening to take action but they will create one after they close a case in violation of our Due Process rights to have Probable Cause established relevant to what is heard in the trial when the ’No Content Rule’ applying regarding my son’s medical care, when he said a the time of his face-to-face with Marry Anne E. Miller, his stomach aches were a while ago.

That I am more credible as a ’seer’ regarding Charles Douglas Berge backing my demand Judge Horner recuse himself regarding my letter to Judge Horner telling him I would not send him the rest of my Affidavit and the fact that the year in which child custody matters are supposed to be settled is long past with respect to Judge Horner’s heavy handed Adjudication I called a Stay of Motherhood. Said Stay of Motherhood makes his Adjudication null and void even if he did not honor my MOTION TO VACATE and or RECUSE PURSUANT TO ESTOPPELS, which went without objection from the opposing party rightfully adjoined as a party to the action.

That after all the proper objections are ruled upon Chandra Snyder will have no Premise left but her own intention to control my Doctor Patient Privilege which violates my right to contract without government as third party control directly violating my right to privacy.

That the DHS can not continue to assert the confiscation of my rifle as probable cause since Sgt. IGA did not list my owning a rifle as Probable Cause when I demanded he give me the content of DHS Premise on the date of November 22nd, 2005, when they supported DHS action, which prevented my ability to authorize a limited search warrant before the City of Independence begun threatening to beat down my door.

The date a "No Contact Order" was authorized cannot be adjacent to the issues around the reason my rifle was confiscated, since no intent to use that weapon was inferred.

That if the statements made on behalf of Detective Barlow are in fact true he is prejudice and disqualified to investigate any matters pertaining to my daughter and I which nullifies his arresting her based on her history, because I had not declared her a runaway, and she can not be seized and not listed as evidence, then forced to be a witness in support of Chandra Snyder’s claiming her as ’a Client’, when there is no assignment to the case on the date a conflict of interest arises due to my daughter and I refusing transport of my daughter to HOST. My daughter was detained for irrelevant reasons that went unaddressed by the proper channels. Subsequently causing my daughter to be detained in jail like environment to gain control of my all my privileged relationships, placing us both under sustained duress, which has had no relief to date.

That no DHS agent is a witness to any issues regarding the, Complainant on behalf of the State of Oregon, in order to allow DHS to include that as a claim against me in judicial reports, which produces a violation of the "No Complaint, No Victim", since the DHS raised their own inferences on that matter I built the barricade prior to calling 911 when I was attempting to bring criminal charges against Chandra Snyder in support of my ongoing complaint against her circumventing my Due Process rights thinking OAR supported my complaint.

That the allegation of a barricade is mute and a call to 911 is not an arrest able offence unless everybody ticketed for that is immediately jailed which would leave Independence Police Department liable for false arrest on two counts, Aiding and Abetting a kidnaper, Illegal Search and Seizure, since they did not grant my limited search warrant or verify that there was a valid "No Contact Order" based on valid complaints from my daughter.

Please verify that Chandra Snyder indeed had directly spoken to the person responsible for knowing how many hours my daughter spent on the city bus getting to an from school and how many days my daughter was scheduled to attend school.

PLEASE with respect to the first CITIZEN REVIEW BOARD meeting, and what I told her and why she did not mention those things to the other BOARD members.

Chandra Snyder’s representation of my daughter is highly questionable in that her character is subject to impeachment, which in turn impeaching her signature on Petition III (i) and having anything to do with veto to Nicole K. Hall’s intention to allow visitation between my daughter and I even after all the testimony at Trial before Judge Avera, which goes to what Nicole K. Hall documented with respect to how Chandra Snyder came to the purported claim my daughter’s passion is church and the later DHS decision to allow my daughter to quit school with respect to why she could not ride the bus due to the hardship imposed upon her by her pregnancy.

Please verify the Juvenile Department and the DHS had looked for a foster placement for my daughter and when that search began with respect to the reason a "No Contact Order" was issued and Horner asking, "Why so far away", when he found out my daughter was placed in Coos Bay, with a response from Chandra Snyder, "There is no room", and my daughter not receiving any prosecution or referrals for her petty offences and how that is equal protection of punishment must fit the noncrime or needed for her disciplinary issues.

This goes to why they were in such a hurry to approve Darlene Rogers prior to Darlene completing the classes and my daughter being a complainant about male foster providers and being hid by other foster providers during inspections in Coos Bay and that foster providers subsequent acquittal on technicalities not available to us when subject to noncriminal prosecution.

Please make note that Chandra Snyder did not issue a "No Contact Order" on the date of contact with my daughter on November 18, 2005, and that she and Allison Steghetti put my daughter under duress to receive services and that Jane Ammon came to the Independence Police Department to provide transport and that transport was refused. I did not allow DHS to interview my daughter and that I complained extensively regarding DHS past behavior and wanted no contact what so ever with any DHS agent, which is the only "No Contact Order" issued on the date of November 18, 2005.

Please verify who issued a restriction on Johnotan Beau Couvillion’s contact with my daughter and when Darlene Roger’s first found out he was on Probation and if she knew he had spent time in jail prior to allowing him to move in with my daughter.

Please verify how many times DHS did an in home visit due to suspicions Melanie had an adult male living with her then ask the other places Melanie listed as options for alternate placement if they would have allowed a Melanie to have a live in boyfriend if she would have been allowed to go live with them instead of DHS taking her into custody.

Please ask if DHS ever tried to contact me regarding these alternate placements in writing or if these other options were even contacted while DHS and the Juvenile Department claimed they had no where to put my daughter.

Please verify if Youth Employment Institute was contacted to confirm Melanie’s schedule prior to the first CITIZEN REVIEW BOARD held when Chandra Snyder attended instead of Nicole K. Hall and what OAR or ORS allows for Supervisory Staff to step in at review board meetings in the place of ’a Child’s’ Advocate assigned to the case then not have the facts straight that pertain to her placement. Congruent to this, since Darlene Rogers is impeached, Chandra Snyder would have to rely on Nicole K. Hall’s documentation for her proof of statements she made to the CITIZEN REFIEW BOARD to dispute my accusation she committed perjury.

Please verify how many of my verifications of conversation the DHS refuted and why Judge Avera ignored my attempts to impeach these bureaucrats and failed to VACATE his orders.

Please verify how my letter of demand for Habeas Corpus be applied to my case was interpreted by DHS as, "We can place Melanie with Darlene Rogers, with Marilyn LeBaron’s blessing, when they listed her as a perpetrator on Petition III (i) after yelling lies at my daughter saying, "Your grandmother does not want you, we already talked to her".

Moreover, how does my demand for Habeas Corpus result in a diagnosis when

DHS or Max R. Wall never interviewed my daughter regarding the material used as information to gain a second set of double continuances against the timely objection from the Public Defender, even after Judge Horner’s recuse, with no contact with me or my daughter regarding what wound up in Max R. Wall’s Oath on Affirmation, that my daughter was Fully Advised on the Premise, she not being Advised at all about the future criminal allegation raised in the MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC TESTIMONY and purported as child protection.

Please verify what Charles Douglas Berge had in mind to meet my demand to impeach Chandra Snyder and what Max R. Wall has in documentation regarding that issue.

Please verify what Point in Fact was used to gain an assignment to the case on November 22nd, 2005 and why Marry Anne E Miller was removed from the case to be replaced by Heather Brown and why Heather Brown told me I had to ask Chandra Snyder myself what her conversations were with my daughter on November 18, 2005, regarding my daughter’s religious beliefs and her asserting, "Jesus healed my mom".

Please verify who initiated the call to the Child Abuse Hotline on November 21, 2005, what New Information there was other than Judge Horner’s order to hear from the DHS regarding ’my son’s matters’, Mat L. Hawkins order prohibiting my daughter’s returned to me when Officer Palmeroy took her to HOST.

Please verify how an Ex-probation officer is contacted instead of the parent when ’a Child’ is not on his caseload. What is left should be very telling about haw far DHS will go to force you to include them in your Privileged relationships in complete disregard to your Fifth Amendment right and your right to Privacy.

Please ask the Independence Police Department why they never responded to my requests for the conversation between my daughter and Chandra Snyder seeking the information claimed as a complaint, regarding my daughter will, so I could verify that my daughter was properly represented.

Please verify what efforts were being made by parent and child, what the Child Abuse Hotline said regarding those efforts, who informed the Child Abuse Hotline what those efforts were, and why all that information was ignored by Chandra Snyder, and which of those efforts were continued after DHS took Custody of my daughter.

Please verify what was information was given to Judge Sullivan and how much of that was verified by DHS prior disclosing the allegation regarding the condition of my home, and who the witnesses was regarding the allegation thereto and if my Personal Care Assistant was ever contacted since she was in my home weekly to provide me with transportation. Please verify what is in police records regarding that issue and if Judge Horner was right in not allowing me to place any evidence in court record and if Judge Luukinen was right in not allowing my motion to confront DHS and allow me to rebut them so their inferences could be dismissed to have bearing on my intended motion to quash DHS from my child custody case.

Please verify who decided that HOST was not an option on November 22nd, 2005 against my daughter’s revived willingness to go there instead into Protective Custody at the time of her arrest.

Please verify what Mat L. Hawkins conversations where with my daughter between the dates of January 10, 2005 and the date of January 20, when DHS was invited to attend my appointment on January 25th, 2005, and how that contact affected my daughter’s behavior. Please ask Mat L. Hawkins why he asked me what medications I was taking during my conversation with him. Why he refused my request to review his notes regarding his conversations with my daughter during his supervision of her. Why he never asked me what my house rules were and why Officer Banuelos made a comment regarding my daughter not being used to house rules and why he asked me regarding my medications, too. When does the record show any police officer asked me for a list of my house rules? This same question could be asked to all witnesses called and their answer would be, "We never asked the mother".

Please verify what Officer Lloyd’s records state regarding the Independence Police Department decision to press a petty issue against my daughter and what they intended to be done with respect to DHS presence at her intake appointment with Mat L. Hawkins, and who initiated DHS contact with Mat L. Hawkins. If contact was coordinated by the IPD in conjunction with why Mat L. Hawkins accommodated Marry Anne E. Miller’s very late assessment though the case was assigned to her on January 10, 2005, and police record shows she said, "I don’t need police involvement".

Please verify why she ignored the OAR and why Chandra Snyder would not verify she gave Mary Anne E Miller extensions to complete a five-day face to face, which ended on January 15th, and my contact at the Independence Police Department with Mat L. Hawkins was by phone on or about January 13, 2005.

Please verify that Mat L. Hawkins did not conspire with the DHS to deny me my Due Process rights and kick himself because he did not have the teeth he was trying to sink into me while he and the DHS used the Juvenile Department do violate my civil rights damaging my son, my daughter, me, and now that is what my grandbaby will inherit and DHS prejudice will follow me no matter how many judicial discretions were committed against the Oath of Office in the name of BEST INTERESTS.

Please verify why DHS continued to forward reports to my son’s father when there was no authorization to conduct a face-to-face, and upon conducting that face-to-face there was absolutely no reason to conclude abuse or neglect occurred.

Please verify why, DHS acting outside OAR guidelines are immune when testimony before a judge was not properly verified and without any Supervisory Extensions included in the completed assessment, which is logged on the same day as her inquiry even prior to her illegal face to face with my son.

Please call Judge Sullivan and ask for the date he was contacted by the DHS and who the agent was, what date that contact took place, if that DHS contact happened prior to February 14th, and what was said to him.

Then please verify what Supervisory Staff documented on matters that pertain to my daughter and why those matters are deemed relevant to my son which will bring you right to the heart of this matter, "Psychology the Wild Card" v. the right to privacy and the right to not contract or the right to contract without government as a third party controlling an outside parties interests which directly have bearing on profit margins and forced consumerism similar to the legislation that forces us to use seat belts.

Please verify why duress in the form of a "No Contact Order" is used to force citizens of this nation to contract while purporting outside interests as the BEST INTERESTS of children and, that arbitrary detainment is not held a violation of Punishment Must Fit the

Crime, and no crime had been committed.

Please verify if HOST rejected Melanie on November 22nd, 2005, and why that was no longer an option and no safety plan was offered to me on November 18th, 2005 directly from Chandra Snyder, who never presented herself to as the ORS dictates she do.

Please verify why DHS at no time prior to my daughter’s return to the Independence area did not invite me to Family Unity Meeting regarding the issues they never presented to Judge Horner, even while DHS had an APB out on my daughter congruent to why Mat L. Hawkins, without any contact with me, decided she could not return home in late October of 2005.

Please verify if Mat L. Hawkins was notified by HOST on the date she left there after Officer Palmeroy directed her to stay there instead of bringing her home.

Please verify that Max R. Wall, Chandra Snyder, other DHS Supervisory Staff, and Mat L. Hawkins, knew that Darlene Rogers was listed as a perpetrator and that DHS recognized their mistake at some point but placed Melanie with her anyway. Please verify why DHS can have it all three ways and still expect my daughter to respect their authority today and want anything to do with them after what they put her through.

Please verify why an Ex-Probation Officer can declare ’a Child’ homeless and then DHS can move in to take that Child into custody after she is driven from her home and that is not interpreted as ’Child’ endangerment when no criminal charges are brought against the parent.

Please explain how gossiping with a ’Child’ regarding private clinical issues, in attempt to diagnose a parent, is not seen as encouraging the delinquency of ’a Child’, when that Child is led to question their parents competency, which directly conveyed to them by bureaucrats in charge of ’a Childs’ BEST INTERESTS, when such topics are brought up.

How does ’a Child’ feel protected by a public official when she hears them say, "No teeth" and then watches them bite anyway?

How does ’a Child’ feel represented when she writes an Affidavit and that Affidavit is ignored and that Affidavit was written to impeach a liar?

How does my daughter feel protected by a system that will impeach a victim of child molestation on the technicality she could not remember which time he rapist made her hold her panties aside? In contrast how does my daughter feel protected when those same technicalities that protect a rapist do not protect her to impeach a bureaucrat who makes conflicting statements on material issues to her matters, like, "I don’t think you mother will hurt you or the baby", but moves the court to allow them to keep her until she turns 21 and she sees they do not document her conversations with them and deny her requests to see her mother?

Please verify how DHS can move the court to keep my daughter, just to continue their duress tactics over me, and require in exchange for their continued services, that she be required to not allow me to have contact with my grand daughter which includes a threat they will take her child from her if she does not comply, and this is offered to my daughter when they have no jurisdiction over the unborn, and have no evidence to substantiate age relevancy issues in judicial reports or in any of their documentation, even after they do not have any proof as to the conditions and circumstances that led to their initial allegation.

How does my daughter feel protected when she is put out of a police car at a max train stop, when she is pregnant, and told by police they do not approve of her foster placement, but she can not come home to me, and does not feel she has permission to go some place else either, and not wanting to be in foster care from the first day they took her. All this while she is under a "No Contact Order" and is counting down to the day to her eightieth birthday and can not wait to get out from under their control.

How does my daughter, when the signature lines of her Affidavit was seized from her, feel she equally head, properly protected, or properly represented, when the bureaucrat that seized her papers was the same woman who detained her at the police department and ignored what she said to her regarding her faith in God and that Jesus healed her mother.

How does my daughter, who is asked to allow a second set of double continuances, not feel betrayed by the system, when she was not informed that she had an option not to allow the continuances?

How does that knowledge today make her feel she will be treated any different, and she now knows that legal advise regarding her and mother’s right to a speedy trial was withheld from her, she being declared Fully Advised on a Premise DHS gained through improper channels, to have a criminal allegation raised against her mother without her knowledge, and by that the DHS and Max R. Wall all prevented her from ending her detainment.

That the Sheriff on duty did in fact threaten to trespass me from the court because I asked my daughter and Darlene Rogers, the foster mother, to walk out of the court room with me, and I, according to that could not have willingly given up my right to a defense as Judge Avera asserted in his judicial order, he ignoring my demand for his recuse.

That the Sheriff who escorted me out of the halls of Polk County Circuit Court for filing motions on Judge Avera, also attended the consolidation hearing before Judge Luukinen for 05P2176 & 05P2064 heard my arguments for going second, and witnessed the Clerk sit on edge while Judge Horner and I dickered with no objections from the opposing party.

That Judge Horner in disregard to my right to face my nonaccuser sustained his own objections which adjoined him as a party to the action demonstrating his contempt of his Oath to strike my objections from record which puts him in direct violation of his Canon and Judicial Code of Conduct since I was forced to silence under his intention to dismiss the case where I demanded a jury, then demanded somebody go to my opponent to satisfy his assignment which is not available to him, with respect to me, since Judge Avera {Avery} ignored the MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE, since Luukinen denied my MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER and the cases were not consolidated resulting in the case where I should rightfully go second being kept.

All these complaints are against the right to Due Process and conflict with Judicial Code of Conduct, the right to a rebuttal, the right to burden of proof is on the Court, "No nonComplaint, No nonVictim", when the judiciary directly opposing the favored party, who said his son wanted to come home, and my Power of Attorney over my son’s testimony thereto, which is in Exhibit. Horner subsequently proving parents can not resolve their own differences without the government as third party influence which proves We the People don’t, in the eyes of POLK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON, have the right to contract without DHS’s permission, which proves the status of Subject to the ORS has degraded all who have a Driver’s License to the status of a Negro Slave.

Furthermore proving if we don’t contract when the DHS says, "Contract", We the People are placed under duress to contract at the threat of the removal of our children which makes any information subject to DHS supervision inadmissible since most of in that information not subject to a limited search warrant, or criminally prosecutable, and subject to equal protection of the rules of admissibility regarding Interrogation and Confessions sought under duress. In opposite, in noncriminal prosecution there it Rock, Scissors, Paper, as the only rule of thumb, regarding Due Process, our Constitution, Oregon and US, and the cause to say Polk County Judiciary a guilty of murder in the first degree for all the countable Terminations of Parental rights which were got on contractual technicalities alone for things less than infraction, and could be accused of menacing parents with the threat of the death penalty if they don’t comply with DHS demands, which is cruel to both parent and child.

These complaints are extended out to the fact parents don’t get a jury in the CITIZEN REVIEW BOARD, but the judiciary get a compliance squad, who not made aware of the Facts and the Law, just the judicial order and DHS opinion. These meetings are unconstitutional, in that if a parent does not participate they are seen as uninterested, and are caused to face their opponent, causing people to be represented by their opponent where there is a conflict of the Judicial Code of Conduct to have the Judiciary Appoint the members of that Board, which is compounded by the sanctioned conflict at the DMV, the parents ill advised, agree to ORS Advocacy assigning their Power of Attorney over their children over to this cold baby mill/Adoption revenue generating machine not governed by any American Code of Lawful Ethics.

In opposite the right to Counsel of Choice, REASONABLE EFFORTS become the Supreme Law regarding BEST INTERESTS, which is far off from General Welfare, even when no Social Services are available or offered, applicable without reservation in the ORS. Juvenile crime prevention, and costs thereof, supersede all good standard of Law under the doctrine of the BEST INTERESTS of children but, when the DHS do not show REASONABLE EFFORTS and take action in the face of a violation of the Judicial Code of Conduct certainly a jury should be allowed to decide the matter of Child Custody or cased built on that loss. This places the Sheriffs Office as law enforcement in that they are mandatory cross reporters instead of called upon by the citizen when their constitutional rights are violated by this ADMINISTRATION.

How does the Public Defender wind up intending to call the purported nonvictim as a witness, in support of her mother, when not properly adjoined as a party to the action on the side of the arguments she is needed as a witness on? What? Is Max R. Wall then going to impeach the noncomplainant with his inferences, "Your mother is going to attack a fellow bureaucrat", to include his cross examination, "Why don’t you agree with me in how I use my power as seer of Polk County Circuit Court?"

How does Judge Horner assign the same law firm to my daughter at the arraignment, when I had no Counsel of Choice to advise me, then he remove that appointment from her and did not inform me or ask my permission, there was no motion presented to me or my daughter from that firm to request they be relieved of the duty to defend her. How then after revealing his disposition in directly declaring a conflict of interest between my daughter and I not require an immediate Estoppels to this matter?

How does Mark Allen Heslinga not adjoin any body but the ’State of Oregon ’ as a party to the action until after the noncriminal cause is tried? How is it that when I am released from Polk County Sheriff’s Office, under duress, there are no victims adjoined as a party to the action on my release agreement, namely Mary Anne E Miller?

If DHS, when Chandra Snyder assigned the case was inclined to believe there was an indication I was not in touch with reality then said Person would have adjoined the former as a pre-victim, and she would have been listed as somebody I should not contact, because they certainly can not come up with it after my release because that is a violation of my knowing the charges against me when I am arrested. So now we must look to the bench to see why I object to her activity then we must look to when that pre-victim contacted the bench and when the case Staffing was held, before or after the date of February 14th, 2005. Then we must look at the FAX presented to Judge Horner, and his subsequent ADJUDICATION prohibiting contact with my son. Those two judges represent a slice of bread each and all the junk that went on between those two slices of bread does not even amount to what could be labeled a bunch of baloney. What it amounts to is UNABLE TO DETERMINE and I wish I had teeth so I found some.

At the time of my arrest I was having an argument with Chandra Snyder regarding the validity of Marry Anne E Miller’s report. The record will show I refuted the allegation and that Chandra Snyder ignored me. The record will also show somebody from the DHS made contact with Judge Sullivan and it needs to be established that contact happened on or about the time the case was closed and my suspicion is that the content of the Staffing was about some of the junk no body investigated between the dates of January 10, 2005 and February 08, 2005, and not so much my daughter’s behavior because none of that behavior was addressed by DHS when she was in their care.

DHS pounded their chest and then dusted off their hands and when I complained about all the dust coming of their hands Chandra Snyder used Police Force to require I become DHS laboratory rat on behalf of outside interests called a violation of my right to not contract unless I agree with the terms of the agreement and the parties served with that agreement and have a neutral person review that agreement which requires I sign that agreement of my own free will or I am not a free person. Somebody purporting to represent the will of my child while my child is being misrepresented should not circumvent my free will.

That makes me a slave to serve the will of outside interests not adjoined as a party but is controlling in fact controlling what ever that ill advised Advocate is endorsing against my child’s will, which in turn makes her a slave, too and DHS not exactly Master. We must look to the bench to find him.

This Master is confirmed by Michelle Felton in the report logged on February 08, 2005. Marry Anne E Miller stated that they "were going to take me to court", but she bared some missing teeth as information to Judge Sullivan somewhere between January 07, 2005, and my hearing on April, 04, 2005 and that falls to the duty of the Sheriff’s Office to confirm the validity of this information, since he is the one going to jail me if I am charged with contempt charges by Polk County Judiciary or forfeit their Oath of Office.

This so called Master is subject to agreements by and between all parties included in Contracts filed at the Department of Revenue, which makes all information subject to Adjudication and Contempt of Court charges the responsibility of those governing, enforcing or benefiting from said Agreements.

The Sheriff’s Office is not a subject to DHS. It is not their obligation to see I volunteer to be subject to another bureaucrat who sees me as a no voluntary Client or I don’t get to see my son, since there was a closed case and no lawyer can continue to represent somebody once the purposes of their detainment has dissolved. This points to a sanctioned preset disposition between the court and DHS, when there is a closed case and no burden of proof available, and stated in court record.

Now it the State of Oregon can be adjoined as a party to the action and have no agents or Children listed as a damaged party or victim that would be arbitrary, especially when I am held at the County Jail while the DHS still try to name their victim but can only look

to the future for their intended claim. DHS is the only victim, which means no actual damages occurred.

How is my daughter not obligated to allow a continuance when there is a grand jury pending to prosecute a male foster parent that she accused of inappropriate contact, which put pressure on her since it was scheduled for the same day of other proceeding scheduled at Polk County Court?

Furthermore, how are these facts available to the State of Oregon to prove ’any Child’ is better off in the custody, when they are damaged?

So, who is there to accuse the State of Oregon of failure to provide?

Not the criminal prosecutors, not the DHS. But, instead of noncriminal prosecution, the State of Oregon worker, the bureaucrat, is fully protected and gets all their Due Process rights upheld with every benefit of every single technicality available to people like Miranda, who criminal, a child molester. But, do We the People get any warning?

No, we all get an Adhesion Contract, subject to noncriminal prosecution, which authorizes the sanctioned pre-set disposition compounded by the fact We the People do not get to confront the witnesses against us, with further application from this bureaucracy of, "I can’t give you any legal Advise because I am not a neutral party".

Something the Sheriff should not be affiliated with by any contract which includes his obligation to enforce the ORS, the Adhesion Contract filed at the DMV, especially when his Office is adjoined as a party to the contract to hold people if they are not in compliance to the Department of Transportation or extended agreements which bare their signature.

Now since Mark Allen Heslinga did not adjoin my daughter as a party to the action, naming the State of Oregon the only party, how is it that my daughter is needed to allow a continuance on the criminal allegation?

Moreover, instead of Melanie Fully Informed/Advised she has the option to not allow the continuance revealed to her the path of least resistance was what she followed. It was easier to reschedule a pre-trial hearing that fell on the same day, of other hearings regarding her attacker.

So, one court date at a time was much easier for her and she said yes to the DHS case worker who contacted her by phone to ask her permission to continue the matter, but my daughter was not aware of the technicalities and Max R. Wall took advantage of ’a Child’ to gain an unfair advantage, which does not absolve him just because he is not obligated to Fully Advise her as to her constitutional rights when she is purportedly his Client, too. Both cases were stayed for a second time.

But Mark Allen Heslinga had other responsibilities not adhered to by Max R. Wall or Judge Avera, and the criminal allegation were dismissed, with no bearing on "Life" or "Liberty" for any of my family members.

How does Mark Allen Heslinga call any one who came to testify at the Juvenile Trial to testify again just to hear me say something Judge Avera was not interested in hearing on the other matter twice consolidated by RULE 53 to the criminal allegation, which is the responsibility of the judicial seat?

This is proof the judiciary can consolidate noncriminal matters only in the direction that gives the State of Oregon full advantages of an automatic quash of any citizen complaints against the behavior of a DHS caseworker.

How does Judge Avera get to preside over both matters when the DHS ignored my complaints and did not substantiate any of their matters by OAR standards and a game of leap frog is played by Marry Anne E Miller and Chandra Snyder both resulting in a violation of the Separation of Powers at the time of assignment on November 21, 2005.

How could Mark Allen Heslinga be obligated to uphold the burden of proof when Judge Avera was required to prejudice the jury as his only option?

How could Judge Avera allow another summon of my Doctor and that not qualify and double jeopardy wherein such a proceeding I get no offer to enter my own plea of not guilty by reason of mental defect and that be entered in the record by the judge? Am I crazy for complaining about Chandra Snyder and the violations of my Due Process rights, and then to be called obsessed?

How does Mark Allen Heslinga get to leverage a Plea Bargain that forces the not guilty by reason of mental defect without my actually wanting to be in the care of a psychologist for my complaints against the DHS? There are tons of parents complaining about the DHS. Are they all in need of a shrink, too?

Furthermore, why should I be punished for asserting my Due Process rights?

Moreover, how does the criminal prosecutor get to name any victims as a party to the action when the Independence Police Department was called to my door to enforce a violation of the right to not contract?

How does Mark Allen Heslinga who not in charge of noncriminal prosecution get to leverage plea bargains to enforce a violation of the Separation of Powers on a criminal allegation for things not worthy of the death penalty, when the DHS are in the business of Termination and Adoption upon matters that are less than a crime?

How is it that when my daughter is adjoined to my Hand in the same Adhesion Contracts our Affidavit, written in my Hand, containing both our testimony, is seized by a bureaucrat who is misrepresenting my daughter and her subordinate is misrepresenting me and this representation is retained by Police Force?

How is it that DHS can enter judicial reports regarding me, and they never reveal the Nature of Representation to my daughter, when they never had any contact with me regarding those matters and I never retained the ORS Advocate to represent me?

How does Max R. Wall have any relationship to call Privilege when he never communicated directly with her or spoke with my daughter or I regarding any matters DHS purported to by my representation?

How does DHS diagnosis, which only directed at the protection of a bureaucrat, be forwarded under Oath on Affirmation, to be intended as protection of ’a Child’ when that ’Child’ had no information or knowledge regarding that matter?

How do two unborn babies get adjoined as a party, one after a case is Tried and the other on a case that will never be Tried, and neither of those babies are a party to an Adhesion Contract and Supreme Court rule does not allow for unborn babies to raise a complaint even if his mother wants him dead?

How does Judge Avera maintain he has jurisdiction over a future crime?

Further out, how does Judge Avera grant my daughter relief form an act I never committed when that matter is pre-convicted by him to favor the noncriminal prosecutor when Mark Allen Heslinga never presented that case for Adjudication?

How does Max R. Wall prove a case and not call a witness he named in a Subpoena when that person had nice things to say about me though once named a perpetrator?

How does a Subpoena get served to the person not called to the stand when by a second benefit brought my daughter to attend where she is named a nonvictim?

How is a case, where my daughter is not named as a party to the action, get consolidated to matters she does not want any part of?

Thereto Max R. Wall does not have to be Subpoena her knowing she is not a willing witness as well as the other named on the Subpoena he issued just two days before trial after it was revealed to him that she was not in agreement to what his cause was?

How does Max R. Wall call Mat L. Hawkins to attest to things gained by him by a violation of my right to privacy without a release from me and anything my daughter said is so protected?

How does Mat L Hawkins make appointments for the parent with the DHS and not inform that parent he arranged such a meeting through my daughter’s matters to loop me in and let my daughter go?

How does the Juvenile Probation Officer seek my daughter’s signature in a plea agreement and then order her to go live someplace else and he not transfer the case so she will receive proper guidance and supervision?

How does a Probation Officer then Order police my daughter cannot come home as if he had adjudicated the matter?

How does this Probation Officer release my daughter from probation when she had not met the conditions of her agreement and later treat her issues like she is a Ward of the Court?



Prepared by Marilyn LeBaron and Melanie Victoria LeBaron for Victoria R D Couvillion and Thomas Alexander Bleu LeBaron

_______________________________

Marilyn LeBaron, Complainant

in Propria Persona by Special Visitation



_______________________________

Victoria R D Couvillion, Complainant

in Propria Persona by Special Visitation



_______________________________

Melanie Victoria LeBaron, Complainant

in Propria Persona by Special Visitation



_______________________________

Thomas Alexander Bleu LeBaron, Complainant

in Propria Persona by Special Visitation





SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ______day of

_________, ______.



SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ______day of

_________, ______.


_________________________________________

Notary Public for Oregon Notary Public for Oregon



MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ________.
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ________.


24REFUSAL FOR CAUSE WITHOUT DISHONOR, in support of Melanie’s Affidavit at the DMV to rescind Administrative authority.


Tags: torture, cops, treason, slavery, slave state, police state, cruel, usual, 21 foot rule, constitution, first amendment, cattle, sheep, slaughter, one world order, arrest, government, administrative destruction, war crimes of the mind, civil war, blind faith, brutality, fight the dictator, infowar, blawg, law, ors, child protection services, sos, war, cps, averapolk, sheriff, rule 53 reform, kids, sex, lave, corruption, power of torney, own, pre-set, oath of office, evidence, rules of court, treason, administration, Florida, CONFIRMED, DC, Rally, 2008, Event, RULE 53 REFORM, Fatherless, Day, Rallies, NFDR, VAWA, NATIONAL, STATEWIDE, RALLIES, PARENT’S, DAY, United, Civil, Rights, Councils, of, America, Torm, Howse, Ron Smith, Darlene Rogers, 97233, SOCIALIZM, stigmatization, UNABLE TO DETERMINE, In re Smith (1991), 77 Ohio, Judicial Accountability, Child Protection, Judge Horner, Custody, Restraining Order, Kettleberge Estates vs Judge Dorothy Baker, Polk County DHS, SOCIAL SERVICES,

Written by madatcps Permalink | Blog about this entry | Add to del.icio.us | digg this

This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

Re: Foster Care Fraud‏

From:
securemailer.d-78099-9vh8qvrv@secureemail.hr.state.or.us on behalf of INFO Dhs (Dhs.Info@state.or.us)

Sent:
Fri 6/13/08 11:59 AM

Reply-to:
INFO Dhs (Dhs.Info@state.or.us)

To:
gomadcowgo@hotmail.com

You have received a secure message from DHSINFO@DHS.STATE.OR.US entitled, "Re: Foster Care Fraud".

You may view the message (before 07/13/2008) at the following web address:
https://secureemail.hr.state.or.us/messenger/msg?x=d-78099-9VH8QVrV

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delivered with Secure Messenger (TM)
http://www.tumbleweed.com
Secure Messenger is a trademark of Tumbleweed Communications Corp.