Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Paper (preface on MK and SS origins to creation of Dept. of Child & Family Services)

The paper I wrote "Abolishing..." is a solution paper to a problem I brought up in the other paper which was also assigned and asked for a description of local and state governments and how they function.  So there were 2 essays assigned with one about review of politics and the other as a paper about "what would you do with this position?" and I wanted to tie them together with a problem that I mention in the first essay, by a solution I made in the second paper.  I just barely mention it, but it gives framework for the next essay, and I mention the real reason for the creation of the "child" program to start with which makes it more understandable why it's in the best interests of the citizens to demand it's abolition.


Political Science/Spring Term

Professor Coles

Essay 1 of 2 for Final


            The powers and constraints of powers for both state and local governments hinges on the Bill of Rights where state rights are enumerated, because local governments are authorized by the states.  

            In local governments, there is home rule, which is the right of the town or city to self-govern, specified by a charter.  A charter outlines the responsibilities and powers of a local government, and there are General Act Charters—specifying the rights of all of the municipalities in a state, and Special Act Charters—specifying the rights of one specific municipality.  Dillon’s law states the constraint of powers is that they are authorized by the state.  In the state of Massachusetts, a county was seized by the state at one time, deemed to be corrupt, and it was abolished.  This act was commenced by such a law.  This law has been under debate since 1857 but has not been challenged in recent years.  Some felt localities should have more independence from the states.  Much of this has to do with money allocation.  The states receive federal funding in addition to their own revenue.  Most cities, towns, or counties are more limited in what they can do for generating revenue, although they have the right to make property purchases.  Because of the number of citizens per municipality, it is almost always impossible to raise enough money to be self-sufficient from the state, which allocates tax distributions and grant monies.  Local governments have other powers aside from generating their own revenue which include policing, local taxes, fines, or fees for services from the local government, and they have the right to make their own laws for their town as long as these laws do not violate any constitutional or state constitution provision.

            In addition to powers granted to localities through charters and home rule, and in addition to the election process which is supposed to give citizens the right to determine who is in power (with some state approval as well, for some jobs), there is a hidden kind of power that underscores the known executive, legislative, and administration powers and process that localities deal with and this is called “bureaucracy”.  Bureaucracy is the “unseen” force that also shows its face, upon occasion, in organizations such as unions, and other groups for agencies which conduct policy implementation, street-level bureaucracy, rule-making, and collective bargaining.  This is a power of organization that is given by the freedom to assemble, to publish, and to be free in one’s person from seizure of papers or property. Without these things, there would be no confidence in the power of the people.

            Localities may elect their own judges as well, just as states are involved in the judiciary process, and district courthouses run and manage the legal aspects of problems and make decisions which hold unless they are challenged at the next level, which is a state superior court or for some states, an intermediary appeals court.  A case may be further contested by taking it to federal court, if someone believes the decision violates a fundamental principle of federal law or the constitution and bill of rights.  In this sense, the powers of the local government can be enormous if someone is unable to challenge a decision handed down by them.  It is only with equal access to the courts that one is able to attempt to change a decision through another court, which might overturn or limit the instructions on the first decision(s).  Obstacles created to prevent someone from challenging a case can take both legal and illegal forms.  Legal forms of attempting to make it harder for someone to challenge a case, is where someone is poor and the state or locality already knows it’s impossible, by copy costs and transportation, to challenge the case, and illegal forms include blocking of travel (freedom of movement), false arrest to block freedom of movement, torture, theft, non-compliance with rules of discovery and FOIA, and removing documents and evidence from a case file.  It may also be illegal to prevent someone from challenging a case because they’re poor if it can be proven there was a conspiracy or strategy in place to do such a thing, which would arise to a RICO claim.  There is no limit to powers, in a  judicial sense, at even local levels, if justice is deliberately impeded and this is the outcome of corruption.

Oregon has a fascinating constitution, and a copy of the Oregon Constitution online that shows these laws includes the 1857 and current 2011 versions.  (See Oregon Blue Book:

Some of the powers expressed in the constitutions (older and newer being much the same) that are online include right to marry; right to practice religion freely; the write to print, say, or otherwise express any thought in writing or in press; right to assemble for a cause; natural right to be free from personal and home search and seizure of papers; and there is mention of corporations, and how a state shall not acquire the debts of a corporation, and mention of the role of state corporations.  It is briefly acknowledged state corporations (suggestively pointing to federal corporations as well) are entities of power with rights and constraints.  An addition to the current constitution is regarding allocation of state monies from lotteries and these things arise from new forms of generating revenue. 

Laws which are mentioned, in the negative sense of not being rights, but constraints upon the state government include “there shall be no secret courts,” (Oregon Constitution Article I, n. 10) which states all courts of any kind must be held openly in public, and that every person shall have access to the courts for injuries against his person, property, or reputation.

 Today, there are many secret courts, the largest being juvenile court systems and courts against family rights where Child Protective Services is taking a child from their family or parent.  This is despite the fact there is an Oregon Constitution which prohibits such secretive courts, found in the original and 2011 Constitution and Bill of Rights.  While most people believe CPS cases are open to the public, it is a misnomer because most of the process is in secretive papers that are often and usually not even provided to the parent(s).  The state generates paperwork as if they are investigative agencies like police and do not provide the information to parents or children, share this information with law enforcement instead (mostly for purposes of defamation and to encourage further cooperation with law enforcement in prejudicing the parent(s)), and even the public attorneys are warned to “stay out of it”. 

In juvenile court, the court hearings which are secret or “chambers only” have a logic is that a minor should not have their reputation impaired by open court when they can be corrected, however, this gives adults the ability to railroad minors with crimes and offenses and to create an internal law enforcement record against them that is defamatory to all law enforcement and justice systems while keeping potential mistakes and lies from the minor and from the public and press, which would contest it.   Protection of the child is not the interest of law enforcement and such courts—they are interested in self and state protection and the rights of minors are abused in violation of the law.  It creates a bullying system that no one gets to know about.   

            The difference between a state constitution and a local charter is that a charter is a certificate of permission or right to operate under laws derived from state and federal constitutions.  In a sense, however, the powers derived by the local government respond to the state constitution just as the state constitution.  Local governments have powers to tax, to make laws, to appoint executive and administrative boards and council, and to have court and police but they are not considered to be “sovereign” as states and the federal government are.

            The tenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  (Smith, K.  P. 36: table 2-2).  This gives all states any and every power otherwise not specified or limited by the federal government.  This creates an enormous range of power actually, that a creative group of people could use for organizing their state.  The Supremacy clause is one which gives the federal ultimate powers over all laws by stating any law made by them is binding to the states, so, for example, if a state makes a law for their state and it is challenged at the federal Supreme Court level, the decision of the Supreme Court could over-rule the laws or actions made by the state.  This creates a tension and bickering at times, between states and the federal government, especially where a state feels they have a great idea and they are taken to Supreme Court over it, or where the federal government says everyone must have federally mandated healthcare and the states argue health is their territory, not the federal government’s.  Healthcare was not something previously defined by the federal government, in a broader sense, and was the concern of each of the states.  Taking this power then, from the states, to give the federal government more jurisdiction or “powers” which states had otherwise assumed were reserved for them, is part of the argument that has been involved in current topics regarding federal healthcare law. 

            This is a new development to the U.S. political system and structure just as the invention of “Child and Family Services Department” was, because prior to creating an entire program for taking children away from parents the government deemed unsuitable, children’s concerns were left to the Social Security law, just as elderly persons concerns follow the Social Security Act law, and at that time, in the 1930s, upon creation it was designed to protect the rights of the orphaned and to disperse monies to “at risk” families but had nothing to do with taking children away.  Child and Family Protective Services did not become a “program” until 1974.  In 1974 the “Child Abuse and Treatment Prevention Act” required states to prevent neglect and abuse and by 1978, large numbers of children were being removed from homes and placed in foster care.  

            It was in the 1950s that the U.S. began imprisoning minors and taking them to court.  In the 1960s only cases where it could be a long-term detention or waived to adult court, did the child or teen receive an open hearing, because otherwise they were closed.  The interest in detaining minors is concurrent with U.S. interest in using minors and children for human experiments, such as MK-Ultra, (Erwoid, MK-Ultra) which was developed and operational by 1953 (many say 1951), and from which many of the other programs regarding children, were designed to act as foils for government operations that were secretive.  Interest in children then, became not only a federal commodity, but one which piqued the interest of states as well, because the new program created new revenue, tax incentives, grants, and powers to the states from the federal government.  It also created an entirely new department and a large number of jobs, at the expense of children’s lives.  While the Social Security program, bad enough and intrusive as it may have been, did allocate grants of money to the states, it was much, much, smaller scale and had fewer employees than when the creation of a new department was added. 

            In this sense, where states received constraints to their powers through the development of a federal healthcare act, because the federal government took some of the powers and placed limits and laws on the states and what they could do, it was the reverse with development of the Department for Children and Family Services because the federal government was creating a new railroad that sent power over children and families, and money, and new jobs, to the states.  States profited by new revenue, grants, and jobs, and the federal government profited by having a new surplus of children from which to conduct their experiments.  This is an example of the tenuous balancing act that occurs between federal and state powers and limits to these powers.

            States, as sovereign entities, have all the powers of the federal government except for the right to make coin and currency, control over the federal armies (they cannot make war), regulation of postal systems, make treaties, to tax imports and exports, regulate interstate and foreign commerce, all of which are left to the federal government.  States are given powers to run elections, regulate intrastate commerce, establish republican forms of state and local government, protect public health, safety, and morals, and they may enter into compacts with other states only with Congressional approval.  States are also not allowed to impair obligation of contracts, which would be obstruction of justice and/or malfeasance.

Their shared responsibilities and powers include taxation, borrowing money, chartering banks and corporations, taking property by eminent domain, and making and enforcing laws and administration of a judiciary.  States are also restricted from depriving anyone the right of citizenship or any of the privileges and rights therein, and requires states to follow and obey due process and equal protection guarantees.







1. A Century of Change.  National Report Series Juvenile Justice.  Bulletin:  “A Century

Of Change” Juvenile Justice.     Published 1999. Web.  Accessed 3 June 2014.

2. Child Protective Services.  Wikipedia.  Web.  Accessed 3 June 2014.

3. “Constitution of Oregon”.  Oregon Blue Book.  2014. Web. Accessed 3 June 2014.

4. “Juvenile Justice History”.  Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice.  Center on Juvenile and

Criminal Justice:  San Fransisco.  2014.  Web.  Accessed 3 June 2014. <> 

5. MK-Ultra Timeline. Web. Accessed 3 June 2014. 


6. Smith K., Greenblatt, A.  Governing States and Localities.  4th ed. Ch.2 “Federalism” (pg. 36).  CQ Press:  California.  2014. 

 7. “Social Security Act (1935) transcript. Our 

National History Day & National Archives and Records Administration:  Washington D.C.  2014.  Web.  Accessed 3 June 2014. <>  

Paper: "Abolishing the Department of Children and Family Services"

(the assignment was to choose a position and indicate what you would do in that government position)
Cameo L. Garrett
Political Science/Spring 2014

Professor Coles

Final Essay 2 of 2



Abolishing the Department of Children and Family Services

If I were President, my first priority for the welfare and health of the nation would be to immediately abolish and eliminate the entire Department for Children and Family Services from the U.S. programs that are funded with taxpayer money.  Because this assignment requests which state or local position I would have, I would start this project as Senator.

            The matters of health and social security or money disbursements to some families would be through the Department of Health and Human Services, and all and every form of Child Protective Services would be eliminated.  This would leave any matter of concern, which should only be intruded upon in cases of violence, to the attention of the local law authorities, whose place it is to investigate criminal assaults, rape, or other forms of crime against any person, including children. 

            As Senator, I would enact a new bill that strengthens family rights, and enforces the constitutional right that each person is free from arbitrary seizures of person or property, and the natural right of a family to be free to pursue liberty in its full form, and happiness, and prosperity without being fettered with social workers and officials who are looking for additional work, bonuses, salary raises, and social gain from inflicting harm against the peace of a family.

            I would demand all of the records from the Department of Children and Family Services  (hereafter, “the Department”) be released in their entirety to the press and to Congress, including any and every individual case, and any and all persons involved in the cases, from law enforcement to social workers to psychologists for purposes of open investigation in which the public may take part.

            I would commission a task force to take a house-to-house census to every family that had a child removed from the home, and ask permission to take statements and records of testimony as evidence against the Department.

            In preparation for trial against the Department for crimes against humanity, including their own children, I would first demand immediate cessation of all activities by the Department, making it clear the Department is abolished, not “on hold”.  The aspects of allocating monies to welfare mothers and families would continue through the Department of Health and Human Services, and every other aspect of the Department would cease to function.  It would be an immediate and irrevocable shut-down.  There would be no recourse to “injunction” remedies because of the severity of the nature of crimes committed by the Department.  After it is shut down, all persons employed by the Department would be investigated and interviewed for their role and responsibilities within the Department. 


I would station guards to be present at the Department’s headquarters to ensure no paper-shredding is being done or documents removed and each person would be personally searched as they are being asked to exit the building. 


            I would temporarily suspend unemployment wages to the now disenfranchised employees.  This temporary suspension of wages would be based on the severity of crimes already known to have been committed and the fact that most acted as direct actors or accessories to these crimes against humanity.  There would be a provision to have unemployment wages given to some only after a thorough investigation has taken place.  In the meantime, the former employees will not be allowed to work at the Department of Health and Human Services or any other related and connected federal place of employ. 

            There will be a list of jobs and positions given to these employees, which will provide for their most immediate needs, which would be similar to the positions they suggested welfare mothers and families sign up for themselves.  They will be directed to one of two options:  Worksource facilities to arrange for a non-government job in their town, or if there is no position available, to a job site at a factory making parts for automobiles, or in construction of houses and commercial buildings.  During the investigation and preparation for trial, these employees will not be allowed to work with or supervise children.   They will retain the right to raise their children if they have any, and nothing more. In this way, every person will have their needs met through work of some kind, but it will not be government work nor will it involve children. 

The administrative abilities of the Department’s employees are suited to other forms of work, which is found at Worksource jobsites, as well as to the factory detail and administrative tasks of the automobile industry and construction field work.  This will also provide temporary relief to the nation for a deficit in the automobile and construction industries and will use the skills of these employees to create a viable automobile industry for Americans in creating safer, energy-saving vehicles.  These employees who take either the factory work or administrative positions in these fields will have their work supervised.  During any form of work by former employees, a portion of their income will be held in a separate account, of 20% of the net profit, as a reserve for restitution monies to be paid to victims of crimes committed by the Department.  If someone is cleared of contribution, the percentage will be reduced to 10% and this will still be held as restitution.  If someone is found guilty of contribution to any case involving a child, where that child or family was harmed, the monies will be given to these families, in addition to any other punitive damages ordered by a court.

A former employee would be allowed to find other work, outside of Worksource or factory work, if they have that option, as long as it is not government-related or dealing with children.  After the trial, those who are not found guilty will be allowed to sign up for unemployment wages if they have not already found work or if their positions in the other fields of work were terminated.

All profits and monies held in trusts and accounts by the Department would be seized and part of it used to pay for the investigation and prosecution of crimes against humanity and against children.  This would be a landmark decision made by an Executive Office to conduct such hearings and trial, within the same country that the crimes occurred rather than Nuremberg.

            The importance of this undertaking will be stressed to the public by advertisements and promotional t.v. ads, making it clear that violations against natural law, family rights, and children, which were of the “old order” are no longer tolerated.  The importance of the right to full liberty, which is freedom, and safety of the children will be stressed as well as the right to be free from personal seizures and investigations simply because one is vulnerable by being lower-income.  The domestic health of the nation will be a priority under my leadership.

            Because of the size of this task, and the number of individuals concerned, the commission will assign individuals from local regions to work with a state supervisor who will hand reports to the investigators. 

            Anyone in law enforcement, FBI, judiciary, and public legal system known to have been involved in a number of cases involving children, will not be permitted to take part in the investigation and will be allowed to continue in their positions until and unless they are named by a victim as having been involved in crimes against humanity and then they will be treated in the same manner as the others by interview and prohibition against working with children in any way or having contact with any child that is not their own.   They may continue working but in different cases and kinds of work until the investigation is completed.

            Because the crimes against children involved many of the aforementioned, the investigation process will be videotaped and posted online with the names of each family affected so that any member of the public or press may look it up with ease and follow the progression of testimonies, evidence-gathering, and trial. 

            There will be incentives to those who take positions to organize and collect this data and the collection of data will also be supervised by means of the videotaping which will be posted online.  The goal will be to have the process open and non-secretive in every aspect, from fact-finding, to the process of fact-finding, to interviews, to testimonies, and collection of data.  These employees will know they will be under constant live and/or recorded monitoring which will be available to anyone in the public just as voting polls and booths are seen and observed by any member of the public for matters as small as counting out votes. 

            This collection of data will be treated with the same care.

            This is what I would do if I were Senator, with intent to be President of the United States, and I would establish happiness, liberty, and prosperity and right to pursue all of these things by first creating a fearless generation of children and families who are not controlled by corruption. 

            The Department of Children and Family Services is guilty of money laundering, wire-fraud, fraudulent adoption, torture against children, assault & battery of families, rape, conspiracy to commit and allow rape and torture of children, bribery, false testimony, fabrication of facts, false arrest, intentional infliction of emotional distress and psychological harm, collusion to create business deals by selling children and the products created by children, use of children for illegal human experimentation, obstruction of justice, robbery and theft, kidnapping, obstruction from freedom of movement, and other crimes.

            I would take it on.

Hello Again

I've been tweeting because I know the FBI  and other government offices that save all my documents don't like having to print out the tweets as much as they do this blog.  It's harder to follow so it makes them work harder.

I do have an article I'm going to post that I wrote for a class and it's not the best essay I've ever written but I think the point of it is very good.  I'll add this to the next post.