Question:
Melinda Walmsley wrote:
Neal, I don’t know your story at all. It’s just so rare to find someone in this place that realizes that "CPS" or SRS have a lot of corruption problems and that court appointed attornys in those types of cases, don’t represent their clients. So after reading your responce, and agreeing with you, it just kind of made me wonder what is your story and your interest in all this.
My story is available in detail at: http://home.attbi.com/~silverstorm/mystory.htm Also I have done a large article on Gestapo CPS with related links which is at: http://home.attbi.com/~silverstorm/cps.htm What is my interest in all this? Simple. The protection of the civil, human, constitutional, due process and parental rights of the citizenry, and to see the eradication of agencies (in this case Gestapo CPS) which violate those inalienable rights.
I have connections to a group that is fighting SRS fraud in foster care and adoption. They’ve managed to connect the former head of SRS with the person who gets to decide if the court appointed attorneys who don’t represent their clients against SRS should be disbarred for their conduct. (the connection is they are married). Interesting huh?
Quite interesting indeed. It is a well known fact pointed out in my website and in some others linked from it that attorneys, counsellors, etc who refuse to ‘play ball’ Gestapo CPS’ way find themselves kicked out of the game in one way or another.
But anyway, she is the "former" head of SRS now becasue of the corruption and exposure of the corruption. she wasn’t fired though. She resigned to go run Kathlene Sebelius’s campaign for Governor.
Of course… "You can’t fire me! I QUIT!" ROTFLU! A pity that the people generally do not have the ability to in such cases rescind the pensions of such folks who ran out of their offices mere moments before they would be tarred and feathered. There are attempts to give The People that power in Oregon through our initiative system.
I was just curious what your part in all this is.
The above should help you a bit. And welcome to the group, BTW. — ============================================================= Home Page: http://home.attbi.com/~silverstorm/ We will never rest until Gestapo CPS is completely abolished!
Response:
Neal, I don’t know your story at all. It’s just so rare to find someone in this place that realizes that "CPS" or SRS have a lot of corruption problems and that court appointed attornys in those types of cases, don’t represent their clients. So after reading your responce, and agreeing with you, it just kind of made me wonder what is your story and your interest in all this. I have connections to a group that is fighting SRS fraud in foster care and adoption. They’ve managed to connect the former head of SRS with the person who gets to decide if the court appointed attorneys who don’t represent their clients against SRS should be disbarred for their conduct. (the connection is they are married). Interesting huh? But anyway, she is the "former" head of SRS now becasue of the corruption and exposure of the corruption. she wasn’t fired though. She resigned to go run Kathlene Sebelius’s campaign for Governor. I was just curious what your part in all this is.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -News From Reality wrote:
From the San Luis Valley (CO) Courier Jan 4 2002 By TERESA L. BENNS ALAMOSA – A three-year odyssey to satisfy requirements laid down by social services here ended for a "mildly retarded" woman recently, who chose to place her children for open adoption just to secure rights to see them. "My lawyer said (the department) would terminate my rights if I didn’t do it," Christie Bailey said during recent a telephone interview. Bailey, a Certified Nurse’s Assistant was first visited by child protective services in 1999, after an anonymous tipster told social services her home was cluttered, the children were eating off the floor and coffee table, and the baby stayed in a playpen all day.
Wow… cluttered, huh? What a CRIME! Kids eating off tabletops and sometimes the floor! WOW! Best not tell them about the picnics where they are off the dirty ground! Kids being in a playpen! Atrocious!
Bailey, a welfare recipient, then received a disability check for $5,000. Social services demanded that Bailey show where the money was spent. When Bailey refused, her children were placed in foster care in August or September, 1999.
What business was it of theirs how she spent HER money? But their kidnapping in response to her refusal to allow them to trample her rights is just typical of how these fascist kidnappers operate.
The children were returned in July, 2000, following Bailey’s completion of parenting and anger management classes, a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program and other training required by social services before Bailey could regain custody.
Let’s see… what of those charges justified drug and alcohol rehabilitation, anger management or other training, or even, for that matter, ‘parenting training’? Nothing apparently. But Gestapo CPS kidnapped the kids to force the parent to justify the existance of the cottage industry BS of Gestapo CPS by her filling a seat.
But acting on a complaint from a citizen made to social services that Bailey had twisted her daughter’s arm in an Alamosa store and other reports, the department once again took all three children from the home.
Oh yes… the infamous ‘twisted arm and other (undisclosed) reports’. Real credible justification for removal… NOT!
While Bailey was first able to see her children twice weekly, she says some of the visits were pre-empted for the children’s sessions with a counselor in Canon City. "I’ve hardly been able to see the two younger kids because of their counseling appointments," she said. "Now I see them only once a month."
One would think that court ordered visitation would be set up to work in concert with such counselling sessions, as if the sessions themselves were actually constitutional in any way. (they aren’t)
Court appearance When Bailey appeared in court Dec. 5 in Alamosa to face charges of emotional abuse and neglect, the department was ready. A long list of witnesses, including school officials, day care workers, and the foster parents told the judge Bailey’s children came to school soiled with urine and feces, her baby was slow developing, and a Dr. Jackson testified Bailey was "a little bit slow – couldn’t handle her kids." "My lawyer only called one witness, and that was Dr. Jackson," Bailey said. "I had several witnesses there."
Demonstration of a typical situation… atty for the parents selling out their client for future career potential for the atty.
Bailey asked Judge O. John Kuenhold to speak to the children privately to ask them their wishes concerning placement but the judge declined the request. "My oldest boy said one of the caseworkers took him out for a Chinese dinner and asked him how he would like living without his mom forever," Bailey said. "Right in front of the foster mother, the kids said they wanted to live with me."
But does anyone think Gestapo CPS cares what kids have to say? Oh, if they say anything against the parents it is gospel and must be believed, even if contorted, distorted or coerced from the kids…but if the kid defends the parents or challenges the allegations against the parents well, that is another story entirely! This clear dichotomy and inconsistency has not gone unnoticed.
Bailey’s objections that her children were not being treated according to child protective services’ guidelines in the foster home fell on deaf ears, she said.
Typical… they never listen to legitimate issues regarding the system. Such would only undermine their kidnapping business.
An earlier statement made to Bailey by a caseworker – that the children’s current foster parents were "too old" by department standards to adopt the children themselves – was overlooked by the court, Bailey contends, to clear the way for the couple to serve as her children’s adoptive parents.
Standard meatmarket shoppers.
She says the potential adoptive father has recently suffered health problems and will be 70 by the time her youngest son, age three, turns 18. Bailey’s current partner fathered her three-year-old son. The father has not signed off rights to the child.
Does that matter to Gestapo CPS kidnappers? Not likely.
"One time they told me I could marry my boyfriend and he could help me with the kids," Bailey said. "But later they said it wouldn’t help."
And why wouldn’t it help? Have they specific proof of the unfitness of the father?
Bailey had the option of facing termination of her rights with the right to appeal any termination ruling or choose open adoption. On the advice of her attorney, and after responding yes to the judge’s question ascertaining she understood the consequences of the decision, open adoption was agreed to.
Lovely coerced agreement made under duress and therefore not worth the paper it is printed on.
Bailey’s attorney speaks "In my opinion, the result of Christy Bailey’s case is in her best interests as well as her children’s, because she can continue to be involved in her children’s life," Bailey’s court-appointed attorney, Raymond Miller, said last week.
Yeah, right… Apparently only you, Gestapo CPS and their apologists seem to think so.
Had Bailey appealed termination proceedings and lost, Miller noted, "she would have no rights to see her children ever again."
And likely with a corrupt and incompetent lawyer who should be permanently disbarred such as yourself representing her that would have happened, right?
When asked if he felt the department of social services had overlooked anything, Miller commented that the caseworker might have been "too involved" and Bailey’s mild retardation was not factored into the equation, but "the department felt they were doing the right thing.
Whether they are deluded into thinking they are doing the right thing it was YOUR DUTY AS HER ATTORNEY to actively and diligently bring these issues up, Mr Miller.. you did not do so… your representation was inept and substandard.
Ninety-nine percent of the time they do the right thing,
And you are ignorant too, since it is clearly a false statement you make here. In fact it is just about the reverse… nearly 99% of the time the do the WRONG thing.
and if a mistake is made, I like to think the lawyers and judges can correct it.
Like you did, Mr Miller? ROTFLU!
Alamosa is one of the better counties in the Valley."
Compared to what, Mr Miller? Auchwitz?
Miller pointed out that Bailey’s mild mental retardation first came to light with the testimony of Dr. Jackson.
This was YOUR witness and you knew nothing of what they were going to say, Mr Miller? Are you always this professionally incompetent, Mr Miller?
"The removal of Christy Bailey’s children had no bearing on her retardation," Miller said. "That was an issue I developed. The Supreme Court has ruled that the state cannot remove children even in cases of gross retardation unless there is a danger to the child."
They are not supposed to remove kids AT ALL unless there is a danger to the child. None was shown here.
Bailey to appeal "I’m going to appeal this," Bailey said. "(Another) attorney told me to put in a motion for a new hearing."
I’ll bet they did. They are clearly not as incompetent as you are. Maybe your client should have that OTHER atty representing them and sue you for incompetent representation, Mr Miller.
Miller believes Bailey will not be able to obtain a new hearing. "She could try to withdraw her consent, but I’m not sure the statutes provide for that," he said.
Sure they do. Any agreement arrived at through fraud and/or duress is unenforceable.
‘Her appeal won’t be successful because the judge clearly asked her if she knew what was going on."
So what? But the attitude of this corrupt clown is duly noted. She will never be successful, Gestapo CPS ‘does the right thing’ 99% of the time, etc etc etc. Duly noted indeed.
Bailey said no papers were signed at the Dec. 5 hearing and no time limit was set for completion of the adoption.
If no papers were signed then no adoption happens. Period.
http://www.zwire.com/news/newsstory.cfm?newsid=2896847&title=Mother%20re grets%20open%20adoption%2C%20blames%20child%20protective%20services&BRD= 1190&PAG=461&CATNAME=Top%20Stories&CATEGORYID=410 — http://www.DontTakeOurKids.com — http://www.hereinreality.com
— ============================================================= Home Page: http://home.attbi.com/~silverstorm/ We will never rest until Gestapo CPS is completely abolished!
Response:
From the San Luis Valley (CO) Courier Jan 4 2002 By TERESA L. BENNS ALAMOSA – A three-year odyssey to satisfy requirements laid down by social services here ended for a "mildly retarded" woman recently, who chose to place her children for open adoption just to secure rights to see them. "My lawyer said (the department) would terminate my rights if I didn’t do it," Christie Bailey said during recent a telephone interview. Bailey, a Certified Nurse’s Assistant was first visited by child protective services in 1999, after an anonymous tipster told social services her home was cluttered, the children were eating off the floor and coffee table, and the baby stayed in a playpen all day. Bailey, a welfare recipient, then received a disability check for $5,000. Social services demanded that Bailey show where the money was spent. When Bailey refused, her children were placed in foster care in August or September, 1999. The children were returned in July, 2000, following Bailey’s completion of parenting and anger management classes, a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program and other training required by social services before Bailey could regain custody. But acting on a complaint from a citizen made to social services that Bailey had twisted her daughter’s arm in an Alamosa store and other reports, the department once again took all three children from the home. While Bailey was first able to see her children twice weekly, she says some of the visits were pre-empted for the children’s sessions with a counselor in Canon City. "I’ve hardly been able to see the two younger kids because of their counseling appointments," she said. "Now I see them only once a month." Court appearance When Bailey appeared in court Dec. 5 in Alamosa to face charges of emotional abuse and neglect, the department was ready. A long list of witnesses, including school officials, day care workers, and the foster parents told the judge Bailey’s children came to school soiled with urine and feces, her baby was slow developing, and a Dr. Jackson testified Bailey was "a little bit slow – couldn’t handle her kids." "My lawyer only called one witness, and that was Dr. Jackson," Bailey said. "I had several witnesses there." Bailey asked Judge O. John Kuenhold to speak to the children privately to ask them their wishes concerning placement but the judge declined the request. "My oldest boy said one of the caseworkers took him out for a Chinese dinner and asked him how he would like living without his mom forever," Bailey said. "Right in front of the foster mother, the kids said they wanted to live with me." Bailey’s objections that her children were not being treated according to child protective services’ guidelines in the foster home fell on deaf ears, she said. An earlier statement made to Bailey by a caseworker – that the children’s current foster parents were "too old" by department standards to adopt the children themselves – was overlooked by the court, Bailey contends, to clear the way for the couple to serve as her children’s adoptive parents. She says the potential adoptive father has recently suffered health problems and will be 70 by the time her youngest son, age three, turns 18. Bailey’s current partner fathered her three-year-old son. The father has not signed off rights to the child. "One time they told me I could marry my boyfriend and he could help me with the kids," Bailey said. "But later they said it wouldn’t help." Bailey had the option of facing termination of her rights with the right to appeal any termination ruling or choose open adoption. On the advice of her attorney, and after responding yes to the judge’s question ascertaining she understood the consequences of the decision, open adoption was agreed to. Bailey’s attorney speaks "In my opinion, the result of Christy Bailey’s case is in her best interests as well as her children’s, because she can continue to be involved in her children’s life," Bailey’s court-appointed attorney, Raymond Miller, said last week. Had Bailey appealed termination proceedings and lost, Miller noted, "she would have no rights to see her children ever again." When asked if he felt the department of social services had overlooked anything, Miller commented that the caseworker might have been "too involved" and Bailey’s mild retardation was not factored into the equation, but "the department felt they were doing the right thing. Ninety-nine percent of the time they do the right thing, and if a mistake is made, I like to think the lawyers and judges can correct it. Alamosa is one of the better counties in the Valley." Miller pointed out that Bailey’s mild mental retardation first came to light with the testimony of Dr. Jackson. "The removal of Christy Bailey’s children had no bearing on her retardation," Miller said. "That was an issue I developed. The Supreme Court has ruled that the state cannot remove children even in cases of gross retardation unless there is a danger to the child." Bailey to appeal "I’m going to appeal this," Bailey said. "(Another) attorney told me to put in a motion for a new hearing." Miller believes Bailey will not be able to obtain a new hearing. "She could try to withdraw her consent, but I’m not sure the statutes provide for that," he said. "Her appeal won’t be successful because the judge clearly asked her if she knew what was going on." Bailey said no papers were signed at the Dec. 5 hearing and no time limit was set for completion of the adoption. http://www.zwire.com/news/newsstory.cfm?newsid=2896847&title=Mother%20re grets%20open%20adoption%2C%20blames%20child%20protective%20services&BRD= 1190&PAG=461&CATNAME=Top%20Stories&CATEGORYID=410 — http://www.DontTakeOurKids.com — http://www.hereinreality.com
Response:
Categories: Alcohol Rehabilitation | 
No Comments »
ps. I love that song!