Here is the Information we are able to find about Children's protective Services

DHS Child Welfare Advisory Committee Membership

March 22,2006

Dana Ainam
ICW Supervisor Conf. Tribes of Grand Ronde
9615 Grand Ronde Road
Grand Ronde, OR 97347 Phone: (503) 879-2037
Fax: (503) 879-2142
Email: dana.leno@grandronde.org
The Honorable Sara GeIser
State Representative
900 Court St. NE H-479
Salem, OR 97301
Capitol Phone: (503) 986-1416 Interim Phone: (541) 757-6128
Email: rep.saragelser@state.or.us
Janet Arenz
Executive Director Oregon Alliance of Children's Programs
707 13th Street SE, Suite 290
Salem, OR 97301
Phone: (503) 399-9076
Fax: (503) 362-0149
Email: janet@oregonalliance.org
Mickey Lansing
Executive Director
Commission on Children and Families
530 Center Street NE, Suite 405
Salem, OR 97301
Phone: (503) 373-1570
Fax: (503) 378-8395
Email: mickey.lansing@state.or.us
Mike Balter
Executive Director Boys and Girls Aid Society
018 SW Boundary Court
Portland, OR 97239-3939
Phone: (503) 542-2303
Fax: (503) 224-5960
Email: mbalter@boysandgirlsaid.org
Jean Lasater
1745 Kamela Drive S
Salem, OR 97306
Phone: (503) 871-8150
Email: lasaterjc@comcast.net
Leslie Currin
School Health Services Specialist Student Learning and Partnership Oregon Department of Education
255 Capitol Street N E
Salem, OR 97301-0203
Phone: (503) 378-3600 x2714
Fax: (503) 378-5156
Email: leslie.currin@state.or.us
Phil Lemman
Oregon Youth Authority
530 Center Street NE, Suite 200
Salem, OR 97301-3740
Phone: (503) 373-7212
Fax: (503) 373-7622
Email: phil.lemman@state.or.us
Don Darland
President, Oregon Foster Parent Association
38183 Hwy 226
Scio, OR 97374
Phone: (503) 361-3906
Email: ability@smt-net.com
Nancy Miller
Administrator, Citizen Review Board
1163 State Street
Salem, OR 97301
Phone: (503) 986-5855
Fax: (503) 986-5859
Email: nancy.b.miller@ojd.state.or.us
Tracy Neely
2411 SW 4th Avenue
Ontario, OR 97914
Phone: (541) 889-4461
Fax: (541) 889-4461
Email: tneely@fmtc.com
Pam Patton, President
Coalition of Advocates for Equal Access for Girls
830 NE Holladay, Suite 125 Portland, OR 97232
Phone: (503) 233-4356
Fax: (503) 233-4359
Email: ppatton@morrisoncenter.org
Ruth Taylor
Executive Director Parents Anonymous of Oregon
4945 N E 7th Street
Portland, OR 97211
Phone: (503) 258-4568
Fax: (971) 230-0065
Email: rtaylor@morrisoncenter.org
Doug Poppen
President, Oregon Juvenile Dept. Directors Assn.
2121 Kaen Rd.
Oregon City, OR 97045
Phone: (503) 655-8342 x1, then 7190 Fax: (503) 655-8448
Email: DougPo@co.clackamas.or.us
The Honorable. Nan Waller
Multnomah County Circuit Court
1021 SW 4th, #360
Portland, OR 97204
Phone: (503) 988-3038 or (503) 988-3427
Fax: (503) 276-0957
Email: nan.waller@ojd.state.or.us
Angela Sherbo
Attorney Juvenile Rights Project
123 NE 3rd Suite 310
Portland, OR 97232
Phone: (503) 232-2540 x233
Fax: (503) 231-4767
Email: angela@jrplaw.org
Becky Smith
State CASA Coordinator Commission on Children and Families
530 Center Street NE, Suite 405 Salem, OR 97301
Phone: (503) 373-1570 x257
Fax: (503) 378-8395
Email: becky.f.smith@state.or.us
Christine Stetzer
Principal, Grant Watts School
52000 SE 3rd Place
Scapoose, OR 97056
Phone: (503) 543-6371
Email: cstetzer@scappoose.k12.or.us
Judy Stiegler
Director (CWAC Chair) CASA, of Central Oregon
63360 Briita Street, Bldg. 1
Bend, OR 97701
Phone: (541) 389-1618
Email: judy_stiegler@class.oregonvos.net

please,,,,CPS of OREGON, Sen George Speaks out -

Senator Gary George explains the ills and evils of a Child Protective Services "plan" and bill proposed to monitor EVERY family in Oregon via the school ...


Jul 08, 2009 · Senator Gary George, continues his explaination of the cost of the program of universal spying on families in OREGON, by Child Protective [dis]Services ...
CPS of OREGON, Sen George Speaks out
Senator Gary George explains the ills and evils of a Child Protective Services "plan" and bill proposed to monitor EVERY family in Oregon via the school syst...
youtube.com

THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT IS PRESUMPTION THAT A PARENT ACTS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD NOT CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICE OR STATE ELECTED AND PUBLIC SERVANTS
The United States court has stated that the presumption that the parent acts in the best interest of the child Parham v J R 442 U.S. 584, 602: there is normally no reason or compelling interest for the State to inject itself in the private realm of the family to further question of a parent ability to make the best decision regarding their children Reno V Flores ,507 U . S 292 , 304 The state may not interfere with child rearing decisions when a parent is available Troxel V Granville 530 U > S 57 {2000}

THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT IS PRESUMPTION THAT A PARENT ACTS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD NOT CILD PROTECTIVE SERVICE OR STATE ELECTED AND PUBLIC SERVANTS
The United States court has stated that the presumption that the parent acts in the best interest of the child Parham v J R 442 U.S. 584, 602: there is normally no reason or compelling interest for the State to inject itself in the private realm of the family to further question of a parent ability to make the best decision regarding their children Reno V Flores ,507 U . S 292 , 304 The state may not interfere with child rearing decisions when a parent is available Troxel V Granville 530 U > S 57 {2000}

New Zealand Parenting - Easton 


Easton's Defence

(March 6, 2007)

On January 31st 2001, I wrote to a range of people including those in
direct New Zealand authority and advised them that I would stand up
against their bullying, I had been in a marriage for ten years
bearing two children.We had separated. On investigation of the
Family Court system it was blatantly clear that there was an extreme
discrimination against men as implemented in acceptable bias against
the functions of fatherhood.

On March 6 2001, I attended a mediation conference before Judge
O'Donovan. I was ushered into the conference room by a court officer
and immediately followed into that small room be my former wife's
lawyer Shona de Luen. Shona sat across from me and edited with a
highlighter pen what I could see was a letter of complaint to the
court I had sent to the court copying to her. Her presence was
unreasonable and her conduct unprofessional.

I was not in the room to argue with either Ms de Luen or my former
wife I had no such cause. I was in the room ready and prepared to
argue with the judge and inform him that he had no rights to practice
in the removal of any association with my children, that by so acting
he was abusing them. In the ensuing discussion I spoke only to the
judge. I advocated for equal shared parenting as the logical remedy
for necessity under extreme societal pressures of gender inequity for
women's demands of equality. The judge concluded the hearing.

I was informed the next day that I was a violent man and needed to
take violent prevention training. Not attached to that information as
was supposed was a document granting custody of my children to my
former wife without any provisions for contact with my children
assured or recognized as necessary. I rejected the legitimacy of
those papers today as I rejected them then. I became a criminal to
fight their impropriety and a deadbeat bad to challenge the
incompetence and arrogance of those who could implement such cruel
and violent conditions over a loving father. My children and I have
had approximately 30 hours contact, for today's anniversary, in a six-
year period. I am lost in their childhood.

I am a trained and respected Early Childhood Educator. There was no
violence against my children alleged, nor was any violence alleged to
have occurred against my former wife. The allegations laid were
innuendo for an over dramatic indulgence in self, with which I was
familiar. The lawyer knew this. I did not need to tell anyone: It was
obvious. The judge agreed that there was violence by me and issued a
temporary protection orders giving me 48 hours to respond. I refused
to respond. I should not have needed to respond. I was guilty of no
crime. More care should have been taken of my children and of me and
of our relationship.

In subsequent court appearances under criminal proceedings for my
challenge against such a cruel as vindictive system my former wife
has given evidence under oath that there was no violence against
either her or the children. She perjured herself on two occasions.
Yet she "still" demands that I can only see my children under
supervised access. There has never been a need for me to see my
children under supervised access conditions. The presiding judge
instructed the jury not to think of this as violence but more to
consider my behaviour for asking such questions as the logical
definition of domestic violence. He had interferred in my questioning
stopping those questions that asked "what was the violence?"

Over the years I have complained in the courts, both family and
criminal for those in power to recognise that this extreme and
prevalent neglect of children is discriminatory against men and
biased against fathers. They blatantly refuse to accept this as rich
in its event. I complain to politicians that this practice and
behaviour is violence against the children as discriminatory against
men and biased against fathers and still they refuse, powerful and
authoritative in their rejection. And the children take the damage of
such an arrogance.

I allege it would cost them too much to recognise that their
practices and protocols protecting women from a removal in domestic
responsibilities of human function should better be considered: for
its condition of domestic violence's exploitation. I allege that
their practice and protocols would be better effective if angled at
prevention instead of a further recognition in their power of craft
in changing the world -for "women's equality" to their own sense of
self importance, governorship and glorious historical power.

And it continues.

On Sunday, March 25th I with as many supporters as I can gather will
rally outside former Principal Family Court Judge Patrick Mahoney
residence and protest. We will have loudhailers and distribute
leaflets. We will have banners. During the years of my children's and
my oppression an unknown number of thousands of fathers and their
children suffered and remain as sufferers for the same kinds of
condition. Some have killed themselves as others have murdered. They
have had no champion, only their pain on which to rely and survive.
From New Zealand this period was under Judge Mahoney's watch. He will
know of me and he will know of my case. With me will be others who
know of Judge Mahoney and his rulings and behaviour when practicing
as the Principal Family Court Judge. His right from oath to act
without "fear or favour" will be compromised. The State cannot
protect him from vigilante like protests and gatherings. This is the
same where the State has not protected fathers and their children
from an abuse in processes and practice.

I do not need to organize this protest. Practices and protocols can
be put into place to protect my children from their on going neglect.
Practices and protocols can be put in place to compensate against the
failure of the State to honour their obligation to protect the
associations between son and daughter with mother and father.

Meetings that involve internal authorities and public scrutiny are
required and if put into place will be respected. Practices must
change. Open policies to remove the discrimination against men and
bias against fathers will need to be set into place. Such are
reasonable requests against an as proved unreasonable authority.

Protesters should gather outside the Karori Post Office at 9.30am.

Respectfully,
Benjamin Easton.

Juvenile Court is a Administrative Court 


They can do anything they want in a Juvenile Court because a Juvenile Court is a Administrative Court, A Commercial Court,
all Administrative courts are Commercial Courts wherein "Best Interest" of a Child means where is the most money...( Interest doesn't mean love and care it means gain... ( INTEREST, in a lesser sense means desire and primary attention ... and that translates into "Love and Care " in the minds of the Sheeple) ( Of coerce nobody is against LOVE and CARE but they don't understand it's only about MONEY)

If it were me Linda, I would Send them all a Tort Claim warning them all of impending charges that you will file against them if they persist in their unfounded allegations, their Harassments and Threats against ... You could also use a Writ of QUO WARRANTO...File it with the Court Clerk requesting an assignment of a "judge" and a Case Number...There in you demand to know by what "Cause" they make these unfounded Allegations'; Lies and Harassments against you and against the Family Body of yourself and your Daughters or cease and desist and the Sovereignty of your Family Body be recognized as absolute...

I would deliver that Tort Claim by hand to those involved before Friday... (The time of the Hearing then male a copy to all of them also... You don't need to file the Tort Claim with the Court until after you decide that you must charge them, which you wont do until after you have a hearing on the QUO WARRANTO

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

your name full, sui juris
St Address or POB
City and State
Zip #
Tele #
Date

Tort Claim

To: Name of one off those involved

It is my intent to file Criminal charges against you in both your Personal as well as your Professional Capacities for the
un-Lawful and Criminal Acts you have committed against my family Body unless you cease and desist in those Criminal
activities forthwith and Immediately and recognize the absolute Sovereighcy of the Family Body of Linda (middle name) Weston, sui Juris and her Two minor Daughters, Childs name: and Childs name...

I shall also file a Writ of Quo Warranto Into the Criminal Court and into the Supreme Court of the Sovereign Republic of State, in which you reside, giving you an opportunity to explain in a higher Court, a Court of Law and Equity, the Authority for your acts of Racketeering, Collusion, Conspiracy,Fraud, ( Kidnapping ? do you still have the Kids? If not, then Kidnsapping) and Slavery... Violations of Authority and Public Trust...




CC to:
____John Doe


Address each letter to the Individual Recipiant but put all into the Carbon Copy List
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

SCHOOLS OR TEACHERS WHO GIVE THE CHILDREN AWAY TO {D.C.F-C.P.S} WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT ARE AN ACCOMPLICE TO CHILD ABDUCTION UNDER TITLE 18 U.S.C 1201----TITLE 18 U.S.C 2381----TITLE 18 U.S.C -S.S. 242 ---AND ARE NOT IMMUNE IN ANY WAY........be sure to let the teachers at their school know that i file {COMMERICIAL LIENS} on teachers as well for {CORRUPT JUDGES AND POLICE}....no child may be questioned without consent of parents title 18 u.s.c 241 and 241 ....you can not interrogate anyone without council or consent..the 5th is still in full scope of the law here.... ..... in·ter·ro·ga·tion
inˌterəˈɡāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: interrogation; plural noun: interrogations

the action of interrogating or the process of being interrogated.
"would he keep his mouth shut under interrogation ?"
synonyms: questioning, cross-questioning, cross-examination, quizzing; interview, debriefing, inquiry, the third degree;
informalgrilling;
examination
"he was taken to the police station for interrogation"

.The Eleventh Amendment was not intended to afford them freedom from liability in any case where, under color of their office, they have injured one of the State's citizens. TO grant them such immunity would be to create a privileged class free from liability from wrongs inflicted or injuries threatened. Public Agents must be liable to the law, unless they are to be put above the law.see.OLD COLONY TRUST COMPANY v. CITY OF SEATTLE ET AL.{06/01/26} 271 U.S.426,46 S.Ct. 552,70 L.Ed.at page 431. no officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity see. United States v. lee,U.S. 196,220 and Burton v.United States 202 U.S. 344.

" the relevant cases demonstraight that the factors determining whether an act by a judge is a "judicial" one relate to the nature of the act it self, i.e, whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and the expectations of the parties,i.e, whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity."435 U.S 349,362 { emphasis added}.

some defendants urge that any acts "of a judicial nature" entitles the judge to absolute judicial immunity.But in a jurisdiction vaccum,{that is, absence of all jurisdiction}the second prong necessary to absolute judicial immunity is missing. Stump v.Sparkman,id.,435 U.S. 349.

Where there is no jurisdiction,there can be no discretion,for discretion is incident to jurisdiction. Piper v. Pearson,2 Gray 120,cited in Bradley v.Fisher,13 Wall. 335,20 L.ED. 646 {1872}

A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person,to be entitled to immunity from a civil action for his acts.Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz.220,75 p.2nd 689 {1938}.

No man in this country is so high that he is above the law.No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity.All the officers of the government from the highest to the lowest , are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.United States v. Lee, 106 U.S 196,220,1S.CT.240, 27 L.ED. 171 {1882
Buckles v. King County 191 F.3D 1127,*1133{C.A.9{WASH.},1999

Purpose of statute that mandated any person who under the color of law subjected another person to deprivation of his constitutional right's would be liable to the injured party in an action at law was not to abolish immunities that were available at common law,but to ensure that federal courts would have jurisdiction of constitutional claims against state officials.
Act March 3rd ,1875, 18 Stat. 470.
Butz v. Economou 438 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 2894{U.S.N.Y,1978}

THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT IS PRESUMPTION THAT A PARENT ACTS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD NOT CILD PROTECTIVE SERVICE OR STATE ELECTED AND PUBLIC SERVANTS
The United States court has stated that the presumption that the parent acts in the best interest of the child Parham v J R 442 U.S. 584, 602: there is normally no reason or compelling interest for the State to inject itself in the private realm of the family to further question of a parent ability to make the best decision regarding their children Reno V Flores ,507 U . S 292 , 304 The state may not interfere with child rearing decisions when a parent is available Troxel V Granville 530 U > S 57 {2000}